There may also be instances in which a direct or source license might impact your ability to earn royalties from other music users. Keep in mind that while music users and program producers may offer up-front, lump-sum payments, it may be difficult to value or predict the future commercial success of your musical works. You may also wish to assess the importance of your specific works or catalog to the music user's business. You should attempt to obtain as much information as possible about when and how the music will be used and the license terms being offered to others. Well, the human-authored bits can be: a recent ruling on a graphic novel illustrated this.You should consider seeking the advice of a music attorney or business advisor before entering into a direct or source license. However, if a human can “select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way” or “modify material originally generated by AI technology” enough, it CAN be considered human authorship, and thus protected.

While it reiterates that “copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity”, it digs into the nuances around that, particularly whether a work is a human’s “original mental conception” rather than simple “mechanical reproduction”.įor example, when an AI “receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response” it’s not considered to be true human authorship, and thus can’t be protected by copyright.

However, what about works created with an AI by a human? That’s more complicated.Ī new statement of policy by the US Copyright Office explores the latter topic. The simple answer, in the US at least, is a firm no – for works created entirely by an AI.

Tags: ai Copyright United States US US Copyright Office Wider anglesĭoes art (including music) created by an AI qualify for copyright protection? It’s complicated.

Non copyright music