AI-Generated Music Poses Legal Quandaries Around Transparency
A recent series of agreements involving artificial intelligence learning through a licensed “large music model,” as well as new EU regulations, provide guidance for how artists and music publishers can protect and enforce their rights in their creative works going forward.
Though AI-generated music may be able to mimic our favorite artists, debates persist over whether it can, or should, capture the soul or contain emotional depth of those artists. Regardless of your position, the related legal issues are less abstract.
Legal and Ethical Concerns
Many artists, music publishers, and other rights holders have claimed that AI companies are using their work to train AI models without authorization or compensation, leading to a wave of lawsuits that implicate core copyright doctrines. This raises legal and ethical concerns around transparency, human creativity, and artist autonomy.
Copyright Owner Rights
AI music creation implicates several exclusive rights granted to copyright owners:
- Reproduction right: Training AI models often requires copying entire works or substantial portions into datasets, transforming them into machine-readable formats, and creating temporary or intermediate copies throughout the training process. Rights holders contend this constitutes copyright infringement unless a statutory defense, such as fair use, applies.
- Derivative works: AI-generated output may cross into unauthorized derivative work when it closely replicates the structure, cadence, melodies, or organization of copyrighted work such that it is substantially similar.
- Distribution right: Platforms that permit users to generate and share AI-created audio files may implicate the exclusive right to distribute, raising both direct and contributory liability concerns.
Figuring Out Balance
The recent Klay transactions and the European Union AI Act suggest a path toward balance.
Klay Vision Inc., a music technology company, recently announced it has entered into separate AI licensing agreements with all three major music labels and their publishing arms. Described as a first-of-its-kind arrangement, these deals allow Klay’s platform—powered by its large music model—to train exclusively on licensed music.
Klay emphasizes that its platform doesn’t aim to replace artists with meme-based generation engines. Instead, it aims to provide an immersive, interactive experience where listeners can curate and enhance their musical experience while ensuring proper compensation for the creativity of artists and songwriters.
EU Regulations and Compliance
The EU’s enactment of a comprehensive cross-sector AI statute helps establish binding transparency and compliance obligations that set minimum standards for creator autonomy. For general-purpose AI (GPAI) models, providers must comply with EU copyright law, including Article 4(3) of the DSM Directive, which permits copyright holders to expressly reserve their rights and opt out of text and data mining absent explicit authorization.
The EU Act also requires GPAI to “make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary about the content used for training” following a standard template set by the EU AI Office. This framework allows for licensed, transparent models—similar to the Klay model—and provides guardrails for structuring future deals.
The Next Phase
While the Klay agreements and the EU AI Act mark significant progress, unresolved legal and ethical questions remain.
Who is the “author” of AI-assisted music, and which human contributions are copyrightable? US law makes clear that copyright covers human authorship rather than machine-generated output. The issue is deciding when turning human input into generative AI is enough to count as authorship instead of mere technical support.
How should ownership, negotiation, and compensation be structured in this evolving landscape? These questions will require thoughtful consideration as the intersection of AI and music continues to develop.
