INTRODUCTION:
In the present era, where Artificial Intelligence is gaining popularity, it has not only become a tool but also the creator. From writing essays to creating music, the increasing use of AI tools in the music industry raises questions about copyright protection in Intellectual property law.
The process of creating and developing artistic works is governed by copyright law and is closely related to technological and commercial transformations. There will be no surprise in saying that AI technology not only helps create new development and business opportunities but also raises the crucial question of who owns the title when music is created by AI, not by humans.
The reason behind the popularity of AI systems is that they offer a vast range of application possibilities, making tasks easier and more efficient, from composing music to song identification tools for creative music. The rapid growth of this new technology is changing the way music is created by artists and heard by audiences.
The vast range of AI systems, such as Suno or Udio, is available to create music online. Some platforms generate music of any genre by using a simple prompt. Others, however, enable the creation of high-fidelity (HiFi), i.e., high-resolution songs and melodies. These algorithms are also capable of generating music with complex composition, having been trained with data from more than 280,000 hours of music, and are even able to rely on existing sound melodies and songs.
The ownership of music generated by AI remains a grey area, as it is not mentioned in intellectual property law. The main focus of IP law is the traditional framework, which is designed with the focus that the authorship belongs to humans, leaving AI-generated works unaddressed. The word “author” is defined in section 2(d) (iv) of the Indian Copyright Act[1]The person who produces the work. Different jurisdictions around the world have different ways of legal interpretation. Some countries have been experimenting with new ideas or models, such as the UK, which recognised the AI-generated work without human involvement capable of being protected under the Copyright, Patent and Design Act, 1988[2], whereas others are limited to a strict interpretation of human-centric principles.
The AI-generated music “Daddy Car”, a Beatles-inspired track by Flow Machine, an AI algorithm, highlights the challenge. Was it an infringement of the Beatles’ original work, or a transformative use? If an AI-generated song infringed on copyright, then who would be responsible for it? Should it be a developer of the tool, those who trained it, or the individual who uses it? These questions create uncertainty for creators and users. [3]
Before discussing the legal question, it’s important to understand what AI-generated music is. When we talk about music, it includes different people who are involved in creating the music, who can hold copyright for their specific contribution, such as lyricists, composers, and singers. There are several ways in which AI generates music.
- The AI helps human artists by suggesting chords, melodies, or rhymes.
- The AI independently generates complete pieces with minimal or no human intervention.
- AI takes existing works and transforms them into different styles or remixes them.
The decree of human involvement defines whether the work is creative or the use of a machine. which brings us to the important question whether it is important to have human thoughts or is it just required clever coding. There are laws around the world which is based on the idea that only humans can be the creators.
COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ON MUSIC GENERATED BY AI
The word copyright is defined under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957[4], which is an exclusive right of the author to do or authorise someone to do an act concerning the work. The AI system is trained by storing data that contains copyrighted material, which leads not only to copyright infringement of the music but also to the right to privacy of an individual, as was held in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 10 SCC 1 AIR 2017 SC 4161,[5] where the Supreme Court emphasised the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as the use of an artist’s voice, style, or composition by an AI system without the consent infringes the right to privacy. When the AI generates the music without any copyright infringement, the question and debate are on the level of protection of the work generated by AI.
- The Copyright Act, 1956, provides the rights to the Human “authors” and leaves the AI-generated content unaddressed.
- In the case of Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents (2012) FCA 879[6], highlights the evolving judicial interpretation of AI-generated content p
- There is still a need for an amendment in IP law to address the AI-generated content.
The AI developer should own the music because they built the system of AI, as the maker of a violin should own every music played on it. The instrument might be great, but it does not mean the musician has no part in it; it’s the musician who brings it into the world. If the user gave the prompt to the AI, it may be seen as the author.
When it comes to the authorisation of AI-generated music, the question arises whether AI can be considered the legal author of the creation? In most jurisdictions, the answer will be no because the legal personhood of the creativity does not extend to the technologies or machines.
There are opinions that AI-generated music should enter the public domain, as they are not an intellectual product of the person, but it raises the most important issue of how it will be monetised such music creation, and who will be responsible for infringement?
The implications go beyond theory. The music industry is built on royalties, licensing, and exclusive rights. If AI-generated music falls into a legal grey area, it creates uncertainty for investors and musicians: who would pay for or protect something with unclear ownership?
CHALLENGES CONCERNING ENFORCEMENT
If no one owns the AI-generated music, then enforcing infringement is difficult, so there is a need to analyse it case-by-case basis to assess authorship and the originality of content.
Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr. (2008)[7] Supreme Court case discussed the “sweat of the brow” doctrine, emphasising the necessity of creativity and originality. Although not directly addressing AI, it underscores the human-centric approach of Indian IP law.
SUGGESTIONS
- The existing copyright laws can be amended to address the issue of copyright status and ownership of AI-generated music, and providing a fair compensation mechanism for both traditional musicians and AI developers, such as compulsory licensing, should be explored, so that no song can be used without consent to avoid infringement.
- By providing clear guidelines on how copyright protection applies to AI-generated music.
- The label should be put on the songs generated by AI with proper mention of who promoted it, what AI tools have been used for the creation of the music, and the extent of human intervention. This will maintain the transparency.
- Educational and awareness programmes among the musicians can also be implemented.
CONCLUSION
One of the main issues in the music world is who holds the ownership of AI-generated music, which requires innovation. In India, as per the existing law of the Copyright Act, 1957, there is a need for an amendment in the law to address the issue of AI-generated works. Drawing from International case laws and policy experiments, India can develop a nuanced legal framework that accommodates technological advancements while preserving the principles of originality and creativity.
AI-generated music is not just a trend; it holds the future. But our existing frameworks are rooted in human creativity and innovations, which are struggling to keep up with new technology. The question “who owns the title?” is not just legal, it’s cultural and deeply human-centric.
When we hear the word “music”, the only thing that comes to our mind is emotions. The music generated by AI is not the same as what human creates with emotion, just mimics the pattern from the thousands of song data stored in it. While it can lead to the generation of some new innovative ideas, it leads to an issue of copyright without intent. Then the question arises, who should be credited for the music generated by AI? Should it be the original owner, should it be the developer, both, or none? This question will help us to understand how we value creativity in the age of technology.
The main challenge in the current era of technology is to balance innovation with fairness to ensure that the music goes on, but not without giving credit to those who created it.
Author(s) Name: Srashti Gupta (O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat)
References:
[1] Copyright Act 1957 (India)
[2] Copyright, Patent and Design Act 1988 (UK)
[3] Falguni Khaparde, ‘Copyright and AI in Music Creation’ (2024) https://www.ipandlegalfilings.com/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-in-music-creation/, accessed 16 June 2025
[4] Copyright Act 1957
[5] K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) AIR 2017 SC 4161
[6] Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents [2012] FCA 879
[7] Eastern Book Company & Ors v. D.B. Modak [2008] 36 PTC 1 (SC)
