AI-generated music is not a work of art (US-SC)!

[enroe]

So now it's clear: The US Supreme Court made its final ruling
on Monday, March 2, 2026: Purely AI-generated works are not
art in the sense that copyright law can be applied for their
protection.

See here.

In detail: The US Supreme Court refuses to rule on copyright for
works created purely by AI. Its reasoning is: Human involvement
is required for copyright law to apply! A work created by a
machine cannot acquire copyright!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This makes one thing clear:

You can use AI prompts to create any number of songs and flood
the platforms with them. But you don't own the copyright – and
you can't make any money from it. There is no money!

This also applies to record labels and majors: They can generate
songs using AI - but they can't market them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Problem: Gray area

One problem remains, however: What if someone (the supposed
artist) only has part of the song generated by AI?

For example, the vocals could be generated by AI. Or the artist
could sing themselves and have the entire background – that is,
all the instruments – played by AI.

Can he then register this song as "his work" and thus obtain
copyright protection?

This is a gray area that would first need to be defined more
precisely by the legislature. The key term here is "the level of
originality".

My opinion: No! If the supposed musician has essential parts
of a song generated by AI, then it is no longer his song. He
cannot then acquire copyright on it. And he certainly cannot
commercialize it.

As long as the AI ​​is only used as a tool – e.g., as an intelligent
EQ, or intelligent compressor, or similar – then the AI ​​truly only
functions as a "tool." However, as soon as the AI ​​independently
creates parts of a song – i.e., generates notes itself – the song
is no longer made by a human and therefore no longer eligible
for copyright.

[ksandvik]

Basically if someone makes enough money for an AI generated song, it's free for all to copy and release it and get more revenue yourself, or mix it to the hearts delight and no need to pay royalties, BMI/ASCAP licensing fees and so on. Or do it with any AI song. And there will be soon plenty of AI services to figure out what each AI generated song is stealing patterns from.

[vurt]

i think the grey area, is how most people might use it (aside from the joke stuff we saw at first) with the ai playing a supporting role to a musician, ie maybe an ai rhythm section to jam guitar to could be possible one day.

where does the ruling stand on generative composition (pre ai [pre computers really...])?

[Ou_Tis]

If it has human-created lyrics, those lyrics are copyrighted, so copying parts of the song that contain a copyrightable portion of those lyrics without permission would violate copyright.

Likewise if it has a human-created melody.

The US copyright office has ruled that if purely AI generated fragments are arranged in a particular order by a human then that particular order is copyrighted but not the individual parts.

The major gray area is cases where an AI generated song is mixed by hand or has effects processing added to it by human choice and tweaked by hand. How significantly does it need to be altered for the audio to be copyrightable? If standard mix processing ends up not counting then someone could legally use stem separation to sample any AI generated part with standard mix processing that doesn't contain human-created lyrics (with the exception of non-copyrightable parts of lyrics, like a single word or a common phrase) or a human-created melody.

Also, even if the audio is altered sufficiently by humans to be copyrighted, if the melody is purely AI generated then the melody itself can't be copyrighted. An additional gray area crops up there when an AI-generated melody is altered by a human or vice versa.

[BONES]

So now it's clear: The US Supreme Court made its final ruling
on Monday, March 2, 2026: Purely AI-generated works are not
art in the sense that copyright law can be applied for their
protection.

See here.

In detail: The US Supreme Court refuses to rule on copyright for
works created purely by AI. Its reasoning is: Human involvement
is required for copyright law to apply! A work created by a
machine cannot acquire copyright!

Are you f**king stupid? The Supreme Court didn't decide anything, other than to decline an application. That means they heard no evidence, they made no legal decision, they created no legal precedent.

This makes one thing clear:

You can use AI prompts to create any number of songs and flood
the platforms with them. But you don't own the copyright – and
you can't make any money from it. There is no money!

This also applies to record labels and majors: They can generate
songs using AI - but they can't market them.

It doesn't mean any of that. You don't need to own the copyright to make money from something, especially if nobody else can own the copyright either. It just means that anyone else can take that work and make money from it, too, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Can he then register this song as "his work" and thus obtain
copyright protection?

You don't have to register anything in order to be able to assert ownership of it. Copyright exists independently of any register. The Copyright Office is just a handy way to prove you had the idea first, like posting a letter to your solicitor, with a Post Office date stamp.

The thing with AI generated art is that the ideas for it come from the human writing the prompts. If you have the prompts, and it's more than just "generate a hit song", you should be able to prove ownership of the idea whether it's been submitted to the Copyright Office or not. If someone steals your idea and tries to pass it off as their own, you could probably sue them and win.

You can't copyright your vocal sound but if someone tries to pass off something they have generated with AI as being something of yours, you'd have no problem taking them to the cleaners if it sounded like you.

One problem remains, however: What if someone (the supposed
artist) only has part of the song generated by AI? This is a gray area that would first need to be defined more.

I don't think so. Songs can have co-writers and if you happen to co-write something with an AI, the AI cannot assert ownership over it, which means you are the sole owner of copyright in the work. So if your prompt includes some lyrics or specific musical direction that the AI implements as instructed, then it would be a doddle to prove co-authorship, which would give you at least part ownership of the result. Again, as the AI cannot assert ownership, you are the only person with the right to use that material.

My opinion: No! If the supposed musician has essential parts
of a song generated by AI, then it is no longer his song. He
cannot then acquire copyright on it. And he certainly cannot
commercialize it.

That's not how it would work, see my point above.

However, as soon as the AI ​​independently
creates parts of a song – i.e., generates notes itself – the song
is no longer made by a human and therefore no longer eligible
for copyright.

The same would be true if you used an arpeggiator or generated a random MIDI clip in your host, which clearly doesn't affect ownership in the slightest, so why would it be different for AI?

[wagtunes]

I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

I write the entire song. Melody, lyrics, chords, etc. I play the entire song, all instruments by hand. But because I can't sing for shit, I take my voice and replace it with an AI generated voice.

This song is no longer original work and I can't make money from it?

Are you f**king kidding me?

[Touch The Universe]

Just get a human to play the ai song, change a few notes hear and there. I'm sure they can get around it. Though this does seem to be a big deal.

[starflakeprj]

...and, the US Supreme Court is not the WORLD Supreme Court.

[BertKoor]

Remember that there's mechanical rights over the recording as well. If you own it, you may exploit it.

This song is no longer original work and I can't make money from it?

You can't make any money of it anyway.

Now seriously, your scenario is different.
Yours is like you hire a session singer.
These get compensation for doing a job but don't own anything.

[ghettosynth]

MMW, this will resolve differently eventually. Consider software, there's far more money involved and the interests are not in alignment with reader goals here. That AI writes the code is not what defines the project. This will only likely hold for things like Suno outputs when there is minimal contribution from the user. Even there though, their need for engagement will likely drive their payout program to take center stage. Suno may eventually feel more like social media to its users. That market will then be inaccessible to those wanting to contribute non-AI work, moreover, doing so likely taints your contribution. Licensed works getting involved in the whole thing twists this up even more. Trying to use AI outputs yourself is risky; you won't know which lyrics are copywritten and which are not.

Even in the domain of images, AI contributions are rampant with built in tools. You will have endless cases on this trying to resolve the landscape. I wouldn't count any chickens for a while yet. All the while, you will have provocateurs, like the plaintiff in this case, who used his own autonomous AI engine to create the image.

The assertion that you can freely use AI outputs to create your own works may be correct in clear cut cases, but there is already precedent that this doesn't necessarily allow your work to be copyrighted.

I find the unintended consequences matrix of this to be absolutely fascinating, and frankly, hilarious.

[enroe]

...and, the US Supreme Court is not the WORLD Supreme Court.

Yes, that's true. But the US Supreme Court naturally has an impact on the
whole world.

EU legislation has a tendency to lag behind somewhat, but then to enact
even more regulatory laws.

Therefore, there is now a very high probability that AI-generated content
in general cannot be copyrighted - and is thus completely exempt from
commercial use.

[Tiles]

So now it's clear: The US Supreme Court made its final ruling
on Monday, March 2, 2026: Purely AI-generated works are not
art in the sense that copyright law can be applied for their
protection.

See here.

In detail: The US Supreme Court refuses to rule on copyright for
works created purely by AI. Its reasoning is: Human involvement
is required for copyright law to apply! A work created by a
machine cannot acquire copyright!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This makes one thing clear:

You can use AI prompts to create any number of songs and flood
the platforms with them. But you don't own the copyright – and
you can't make any money from it. There is no money!

This also applies to record labels and majors: They can generate
songs using AI - but they can't market them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Problem: Gray area

One problem remains, however: What if someone (the supposed
artist) only has part of the song generated by AI?

For example, the vocals could be generated by AI. Or the artist
could sing themselves and have the entire background – that is,
all the instruments – played by AI.

Can he then register this song as "his work" and thus obtain
copyright protection?

This is a gray area that would first need to be defined more
precisely by the legislature. The key term here is "the level of
originality".

My opinion: No! If the supposed musician has essential parts
of a song generated by AI, then it is no longer his song. He
cannot then acquire copyright on it. And he certainly cannot
commercialize it.

As long as the AI ​​is only used as a tool – e.g., as an intelligent
EQ, or intelligent compressor, or similar – then the AI ​​truly only
functions as a "tool." However, as soon as the AI ​​independently
creates parts of a song – i.e., generates notes itself – the song
is no longer made by a human and therefore no longer eligible
for copyright.

This isn't a gray area imho, it's always been this way. If you write a song and then use AI-generated lyrics, you've still written a song. You can't copyright the lyrics, but you can copyright the song itself. And since lyrics are always part of the song and almost always only fit that one specific song, it's a kind of de facto copyright.

Basically, not much changes. The judges have essentially just confirmed what's always been true. A certain level of intellectual and artistic originality was already required to copyright a work. There are entire fields of art and craft that can't copyright their work because they lack precisely that. Graphic designers and journalists know this all too well.

Where i have to disagree is the idea that you cannot make money from purely AI generated content. Lots of youtube channels does exactly that. And also spotify is flooded with AI songs. You can monetize everything as long as there is demand.

[VariKusBrainZ]

I bet this wont be applied to other industries such as medicine, engineering, genetic modification etc

[sjm]

I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

I write the entire song. Melody, lyrics, chords, etc. I play the entire song, all instruments by hand. But because I can't sing for shit, I take my voice and replace it with an AI generated voice.

This song is no longer original work and I can't make money from it?

Are you f**king kidding me?

No, you've misunderstood the previous posts. There are different types of rights that apply to a musical work. For example, there's copyright of the composition as well as of the performance/recording.

In your case, the composition and lyrics are yours, and can be copyrighted. Ditto for the final delivered product that features you playing alongside the AI singing. What you don't have the rights to is the performance by the singer/AI. So there is no copyright applicable to the audio file that contains the isolated vocal performance.

However, because you own the rights to the lyrics, anyone who wants to use the lyrics in their song (i.e. the actual words in the order you created them) still needs your permission. That means that in practice, nobody can actually use the raw original AI vocal track in their own production without permission either, because while there is no copyright on the recording, the lyrics featured in the recording are still protected.

Contrast this with a song featuring lyrics written by an AI but performed by a human (i.e. the other way around). You/the singer own the rights to the performance/recording of the vocals and to the final delivered product (i.e. the song as heard on Spotify). But anyone can create a song featuring the exact same lyrics without your permission (no copyright applies, as created by an AI). But the actual recording of the vocal performance by the human singer cannot be used without permission. Anyone taking the lyrics will need to make their own recording or first get permission to use the original recording of the human singer in their track.

Ther money thing is red herring and is being misrepresented in this thread. You can try to sell someone an AI-created work all you like; it's up to them to decide if they want to buy it. It's worth what its purchaser will pay for it. But! Any Johnny-come-lately can also sell that same product without requiring any permission to do so. That means that the de facto value is zero, even if someone is willing to pay. They are essentially just getting a bad deal.

What copyright does is determine who has the right to duplicate (copy) a work. It says nothing about whether that work is going to be sold or not. You can give away the recording of your own copyrighted work for free if you want. You can charge money for things that are not protected by copyright, like strawberries you have grown in your garden. You are equating two distinct and seperate things here.

[Ou_Tis]

I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

I write the entire song. Melody, lyrics, chords, etc. I play the entire song, all instruments by hand. But because I can't sing for shit, I take my voice and replace it with an AI generated voice.

This song is no longer original work and I can't make money from it?

Are you f**king kidding me?

Even if the song were purely AI generated you can still make money off it, but if someone else correctly guesses that it's AI generated they can legally redistribute the song. ContentID and similar services typically restrict redistribution without requiring proof that the song supposedly being infringed on was copyrighted and can still refuse to allow them to redistribute it (and proving that a work was 100% AI generated and that the lyrics and melody weren't written by humans is extremely difficult in most cases (Suno lets you upload melodies which it will generally follow---you upload audio and use the cover function), unless they have access to the prompt).

In this case all the human created parts---including the melody and the lyrics---are copyrighted. *If* you just used the AI output for your vocal and didn't add any FX or mix it or master it then they could hypothetically use stem separation to isolate the vocal and chop out a non-copyrightable small section to sample, like maybe one syllable. But the US copyright office has said that human tweaking "by hand" can render a work copyrightable (in this case, that would be the actual audio of the vocal); that's the gray area where they haven't yet indicated how much tweaking is required.