Algorithmic Music: Who Owns Songs Generated by AI DJs?

In the digital age, artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized numerous creative industries, and music is no exception. Algorithmic music generation, powered by AI DJs, has become a

prominent method of producing songs, remixes, and entire albums without direct human composition. These AI systems analyse vast databases of music, learn patterns, and generate new soundscapes that often mimic human creativity. As AI-generated music grows in prevalence and commercial use, it challenges traditional legal frameworks governing intellectual property (IP), particularly copyright. The central legal question that arises is: who owns the rights to songs generated by AI DJs? This question involves dissecting existing copyright laws, assessing their applicability to AI-created works, and exploring potential legal reforms to address this emerging field.

| Algorithmic Music: Who Owns Songs Generated by AI DJs? |

The Rise of Algorithmic Music and AI DJs

Algorithmic music involves using computer algorithms to compose, arrange, or perform music. Recent advancements in machine learning, particularly deep learning, have enabled AI systems like OpenAI’s Jukebox and Google’s Music LM to produce music tracks with minimal human intervention. These AI DJs analyse extensive libraries of audio data, learn stylistic features, and generate novel compositions that often rival human musicians in complexity and appeal. The use of AI in music spans multiple purposes—from background scores for video games to commercial music releases and personalized playlists. The industry’s adoption of AI tools promises enhanced efficiency and creativity but raises substantial legal and ethical questions, especially regarding authorship and ownership.

Traditional Copyright Framework and Human Authorship

Copyright law traditionally protects original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. This protection fundamentally assumes that the work is created by a human author who exercises creative judgment and originality. The Copyright Act of 1976, the primary statute governing U.S. copyright, does not explicitly address AI or non-human creators. Judicial decisions and administrative guidance reinforce the notion that copyright requires human authorship.

One illustrative case is the "monkey selfie" litigation, where the U.S. Copyright Office refused to register a photograph taken by a monkey, emphasizing that only works created by humans qualify for copyright protection.

Similarly, the Office’s Compendium states that "works produced by nature, animals, or plants" are not copyrightable. By analogy, AI-generated works that lack sufficient human creative input currently fall outside copyright protection.

The Legal Challenges of AI-Generated Music

AI-generated music complicates the traditional authorship paradigm. When an AI DJ independently composes a song based on algorithms and data input without specific human creative direction, it is unclear if any human can claim authorship. If no human author exists, the work may be considered ineligible for copyright protection and thus enter the public domain immediately upon creation.

This has profound implications. Without copyright protection, creators or companies investing in AI music generation may lack exclusive rights to control and profit from the works. Furthermore, musicians, composers, and producers may face increased competition from AI-generated content that can be freely used. This scenario challenges the economic incentives traditionally undergirding the music industry.

Approaches to Ownership: Human Creators vs. AI as Author

Given the uncertainty, scholars and lawmakers have proposed several approaches:

• Human Programmer or Operator as Author

One approach attributes authorship to the humans who created or trained the AI system, arguing that their programming choices, dataset curation, and training exercises constitute sufficient creative input. Under this theory, the person who "undertook the necessary arrangements" for creation owns the copyright. The United Kingdom’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 explicitly provides copyright protection for computer-generated works where there is no human author by attributing authorship to the person who made the arrangements for creation. However, U.S. law has not yet adopted this approach explicitly.

• Joint Authorship Between Human and AI

Where a human provides inputs such as prompts, selects datasets, or curates outputs, joint authorship may be possible. Joint authorship requires collaboration with shared intent to create a work and some degree of creative contribution by each author.

Whether AI can be considered an "author" under current law is highly questionable, but the human’s role could be recognized as a co-author or sole author depending on the extent of creative control.

• No Copyright Protection

The most conservative approach is denying copyright protection to AI-generated music lacking human authorship, effectively placing such works in the public domain. While this aligns with the current U.S. Copyright Office practice, it could undermine incentives for investment in AI-generated creativity and complicate commercial exploitation.

Policy Considerations and Industry Impact

The music industry faces both opportunities and challenges with AI-generated music. On the one hand, AI can democratize music creation, reduce costs, and enable novel artistic expressions. On the other hand, the lack of clear ownership rules may lead to market uncertainty, free-riding, and diminished revenues for human artists.

Policymakers must balance encouraging innovation with protecting creators’ rights. Legislative reforms could clarify the status of AI-generated works, possibly by extending rights to human creators who contribute meaningfully to AI processes or by crafting new sui generis protections for AI-generated content. The international community may also benefit from harmonized standards to avoid jurisdictional conflicts.

Conclusion

Algorithmic music generated by AI DJs challenges foundational legal concepts of authorship

and ownership in copyright law. While current U.S. law emphasizes human authorship, emerging AI technologies necessitate re-evaluation and potential reform. Whether by recognizing programmers as authors, acknowledging joint authorship, or developing new legal categories, the law must adapt to protect creative incentives without stifling technological progress. As AI continues to transform music creation, legal clarity will be essential for creators, consumers, and the industry at large.