Written by Managing Principal, Jennifer Tutty and Law Student, Indigo Bauchop
Did you know you can now create music using AI tools like ChatGPT? In fact, some of these AI-generated songs sound so realistic, it’s difficult to tell whether they were created by a human or a machine.
AI is rapidly transforming the music industry as well as copyright laws in Australia and across the world, both positively and negatively. With this innovation many legal questions are being raised around AI and copyright including, where does AI-generated music come from? And who owns music made by AI?
From music production to contract negotiations, AI is pushing the boundaries of what’s possible… and what’s legal. In this article, our copyright lawyers in Australia review what’s going on globally with AI copyright and AI generated music.
AI and the Music Industry, Globally
AI is influencing the music industry across multiple areas including: content creation, royalty calculations, licensing and contract negotiations. As AI tools become more advanced, artists and producers face more complex legal questions, specifically around AI music copyright.
Different countries have taken varied approaches to regulating AI-generated content. In Australia, the Copyright Act 1968 governs the protection of sound recordings, with international reach supported by the Copyright (International Protection) Regulations 1969. Meanwhile, the United States is caught in substantial lawsuits regarding the ownership of music produced by AI, the UK is facing significant backlash due to recent proposals against the legality of AI music and the European Union is enforcing transparency around AI-generated works.
We further explore the current legal context of producing music with AI for each country, respectively, below.
Can you copyright AI music?
Australia
In Australia, copyright protection under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) is currently limited to works created by humans. That is, only human authorship (defined as independent intellectual effort), is legally protected. Evidently, this raises issues for AI-generated content, since it often lacks a human creator in the traditional sense.
As it stands:
-AI has no legal personhood or rights.
-There is no obligation to disclose that a song was AI-generated.
-There is no legal precedent determining who owns AI-generated music in Australia.
This legal grey area means that, for now, AI-generated music may not be copyrightable – while you could potentially trademark a song title, full copyright protection is unlikely until a clear precedent is set by the courts.
Importantly, we must note that there is no guarantee music produced by AI is not unintentionally copying protected works, which raises significant risks of copyright infringement.
United States
The U.S. Copyright Office has explicitly clarified that works created solely by AI are not eligible for copyright unless there is “meaningful human contribution”. This, however, is currently experiencing major industry pushback.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) along with major record labels Universal, Warner, and Sony, have filed a lawsuit against several AI music generators. This lawsuits alleges that these AI platforms have taken copyrighted music from the internet to train their models without permission, attribution or compensation. Specifically, creating songs by remixing lyrics and melodies to generate music that copies existing sound recordings.
AI companies face damages of up to $150,000 per infringing song. Some other AI platforms have since been encouraged to secure licensing agreements, while other remains under significant legal scrutiny.
Ultimately, the future of AI in music creation in America (and potentially globally) will likely be shaped by the outcomes of these court cases.
United Kingdom
Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the UK recognises computer-generated works, assigning authorship to the person who made the arrangements for the work, recognising that such works may lack human authorship. Pursuant to s9(3):
“In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
While this law was forward thinking at the time, it is the ‘someone who made the arrangements’ element that is becoming more and more ambiguous as the use of AI in the industry quickly increases. As a result, the framework of this act has been called in for question.
The British government’s recent proposals include allowing AI systems to train on creative works from vast data bases without requiring consent of the original creators. This, (obviously) has sparked significant outrage among artists, arguing that such practises undermine the right to their work.
In protest, a bunch of UK musicians (including many high-profile artists) released a silent album to express concern over the free use of their work. It has been perceived as a symbolic act to critique the proposed changes, drawing attention to what artists see as an loss of their protections under copyright to technology – reflecting a deeper tensions over the balance between technological progress and creative rights.
European Union
Finally, the EU has taken a more proactive stance. The EU AI Act, approved in May 2024, requires AI systems to be transparent about their content creation. It also addresses deepfakes, voice cloning and the need for licenses when using copyrighted material to train AI.
Key takeaways from the EU approach include:
-AI-generated music must be labelled accordingly;
-Training AI models on copyrighted content without permission may become illegal; and
-AI-generated works still require significant human input to be considered copyrightable.
Despite these efforts, copyright in the EU remains largely reserved for human authorship – legal reforms are ongoing to address the growing use of AI in commercial music production.
Precautions to Take
Until legal clarity emerges, artists and producers should:
- Proceed cautiously when using AI tools, especially to avoid unintentional infringement;
- Always ensure that the content generated by AI doesn’t reproduce protected material; and
- If in doubt, seek legal advice.
Final Thoughts
Since AI-generated music is still so new, the law remains limited; however, there is a growing push to develop legal frameworks that govern how AI music is created, used and who owns the rights.
Notably, it is important to keep in mind that while copyright is one issue, it is just the tip of the iceberg – the moral and ethical implications of using AI to generate creative material, along with concerns around transparency and authorship, represent much broader and more complex legal and ethical challenges.
Further Information
Want more information on our copyright law servcies? Check out our copyright lawyers page.
For more information on music law, check out our blogs:
–Electronic Music Contracts: 8 Key Clauses to Watch Out For
–Music Industry Contracts (Part 1): 8 Key clauses to Watch Out For
–Music Industry Contracts (Part 2): How to Negotiate Like a Pro
If you have any music law related legal questions or would like legal advice on privacy policies, please contact us through our online form or via email at hello@studiolegal.com.au.
Written by Law Student, Indigo Bauchop, and Managing Principal, Jennifer Tutty
Published 3 April 2025.
Photo by John Hult on Unsplash
DISCLAIMER
The information in this article is of a general nature. It does not constitute formal legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Please see the full disclaimer in our website terms. Please contact Studio Legal if you are seeking advice about a specific legal matter.