As intellectual property law struggles to keep up with the needs of an evolving world, music is one of the most dynamic and contentious fields. As legal systems around the globe have struggled for decades to define the boundaries of ownership, originality, and fair use in the music industry, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) as a creative force has triggered a paradigmatic revolution in our understanding of authorship and rights.

Now, music is not only created by humans using instruments and intention; it’s also created by algorithms trained on large datasets of other songs, sounds, and styles. That presents some complicated questions: Who owns the copyright on a song written by a machine? Can an algorithm be considered an author? And what’s the consequence when such machine-generated content borrows too heavily from copyrighted works?

The Evolution of Music Copyright Law

Classically, music copyright law has demanded two principles: fixation and originality. To qualify for protection, a musical composition must be an original work, at a minimum, and it must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Courts have uniformly held that originality demands some minimal amount of creativity, a standard that has stood firm since Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. in 1991.

But AI blurs this line. Can an output of a generative algorithm meet this threshold? And if so, who is the creator: the programmer, the person who inputted prompts into it, or perhaps the company that owns the AI platform?

Enter the Algorithm: Music in the Age of Machines

AI-generated music is not a hypothetical concept—it’s already transforming industries. Tools like OpenAI’s MuseNet, Google’s MusicLM, and platforms like Soundful and Amper Music allow users to generate full-length tracks in seconds. These systems don’t merely remix existing songs; they synthesize entirely new compositions from patterns learned across millions of samples.

This democratization of creativity is exciting but extremely disruptive. For instance, if a company uses AI to create a background score for an ad, and the melody later becomes the subject of a copyright battle for resembling an already existing song, who is responsible? Further, can the company claim ownership of the AI-created music under current laws?

AI music and the Undermining of Originality

Here is where the controversy intensifies. While some argue that AI-generated works lack the “human touch” to qualify for copyright protection, others point to the creative effort involved in training, curating, and guiding the AI model.

From the legal point of view, AI music has the audacity to challenge the very definition of authorship. Most jurisdictions require a human author for a work to be eligible for copyright. In the US, the Copyright Office has routinely denied registration for works created without human authorship. But what if the “human” contribution lies in the design of the algorithm or the intentionality of the prompt? Such gray areas are becoming ever more relevant in courtrooms and boardrooms everywhere.

A leading case in this context is Thaler v. Perlmutter, where the U.S. District Court again insisted that copyright protection is for human-authored works and refused the registration of a Creativity Machine AI-generated artwork. The ruling set a precedent, but music, with its multi-layered and subjective nature, might be about to challenge that precedent with more sophistication in the near future.

Implications for Licensing and Royalties

The commercialization of AI-generated music introduces further legal challenges. Traditional music licensing systems are based on identifiable rights holders—producers, performers, composers, and publishers. Yet, when a song is created by an AI system, it is unclear who the rightful owner is. This renders licensing, royalty payments, and even moral rights more complicated, as they are inclined to be based on the reputation and intentions of the creator.

There is also the risk of unintentional infringement. Since AI algorithms are trained on existing copyrighted music, it is always a risk that generated music will reflect melodies, chord progressions, or rhythms from such works. Judges would have to determine, in such instances brought before the courts, if such similarities are the result of unlawful copying or coincidence.

Regulatory Gaps and Global Inconsistencies

Legal systems worldwide are catching up with varying degrees of urgency and coherence. The AI Act of the European Union and its proposed revisions to copyright law aim to introduce transparency and accountability into AI-generated content. The UK Intellectual Property Office has provided guidance stating that AI-generated works can be protected under a custom category of copyright—although only for 50 years, and only if the output is organized by a human.

Meanwhile, other countries like Japan and Singapore have adopted more lenient approaches, allowing broader use of AI-generated content without infringing on existing copyrights in a bid to foster innovation. These differences in regulation could lead to forum shopping, conflict of laws, and enforcement issues in cross-border music distribution.

The Way Forward: Innovating with Integrity

For lawyers, the proliferation of AI music composition represents both a challenge and an opportunity. On the one hand, it calls for the reconceptualization of traditional doctrines in copyright law. On the other, it opens up the potential for new models of joint authorship, AI-compatible creativity, and novel types of licensing that reflect this hybrid reality.

The final outcome must not be to stifle innovation, but to guide it in a responsible manner. Courts, legislatures, and industry leaders must join forces to make sure that creators, whether human or machine, are acknowledged and compensated in a rational legal framework.

We are on the cusp of a new era of musical creativity in which ingenuity is no longer limited to the human imagination. As legal systems come up to speed with this cultural and technological development, the issue will not just be who owns the music, but what it will mean to create in the era of algorithms.