Answer first: Copyright law has long hinged on human creativity, but artificial intelligence now produces songs, images, and texts without direct human authorship. While current legal frameworks in the US and Europe require a human creator for copyright protection, the history of sound recordings reveals how copyright adapted to ne…
Patents context for IP teams
Copyright law traditionally rests on the principle that human creativity merits legal protection, a concept known as “originality.” This principle underpins the protection of cultural works created by people. However, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is challenging this foundational assumption by generating songs, images, novels, and artworks autonomously and rapidly. These AI-generated works are increasingly streamed, licensed, and sold, raising critical questions about whether such creations should receive copyright protection.
Currently, most legal systems maintain that copyright requires human authorship. For instance, in the 2023 US federal case Thaler v Perlmutter, the court affirmed that copyright protection is contingent on a human creator. Similarly, the Court of Justice of the European Union defines originality as the author’s “own intellectual creation,” reinforcing the human-centric approach.
Key takeaways for AI-generated music copyright
- Confirm how the development affects patents ownership, enforcement, licensing, or portfolio records.
- Separate confirmed facts from legal interpretation before advising business teams.
- Map deadlines, affected assets, contracts, and evidence files to the responsible internal owner.
- Use the issue as a prompt for monitoring, filing strategy, dispute preparation, or member education.
Practical analysis
Despite this apparent legal consensus, copyright law has historically evolved in response to technological innovation and commercial pressures, rather than adhering to a fixed theory of creativity. The development of sound recording technology in the late 19th century provides a pertinent example.
Before Thomas Edison’s phonograph invention in 1877, music was primarily experienced through live performances or written scores. The phonograph revolutionized this by enabling performances to be mechanically captured, copied, and distributed. Initially, however, sound recordings were viewed as mere mechanical reproductions lacking originality, and thus were denied copyright protection for decades.
It took 34 years for English and Welsh law to recognize sound recordings under the Copyright Act 1911. The United States followed with the Sound Recording Amendment in 1971, and France extended protection only in 1985. Over time, as the recording industry expanded, lawmakers shifted their stance, acknowledging recordings as protected intellectual property despite their mechanical origins.
Technically, sound recordings are safeguarded through neighbouring rights rather than traditional authors’ rights. Nonetheless, they have become central to the modern music industry, demonstrating how economic significance can drive legal recognition beyond strict originality doctrines. AI-generated works may be on a similar trajectory.
While many experts argue that AI outputs lack human creativity and thus differ fundamentally from sound recordings, history suggests that copyright boundaries often shift when new technologies gain economic importance. This dynamic is already evident in the United Kingdom, where the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that for computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works, “the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
This provision predates modern generative AI but indicates that copyright law can accommodate non-traditional forms of authorship. Moreover, the UK government’s recent consultation on copyright and AI emphasizes protecting creators while also framing copyright as a catalyst for growth, innovation, investment, and competitiveness.
Overall, copyright has evolved through successive technological phases—from protecting sheet music to sound recordings, and potentially now to AI-generated works. Each phase reflects copyright’s adaptability to technological and economic change, continually challenging and expanding the concept of “intellectual” property.
Related IIPLA reading
AI-Generated Music and Copyright: Lessons from the Phonograph’s Legal Evolution Copyright law has long hinged on human creativity, but artificial intelligence now produces songs, images, and texts without direct human authorship. While current legal frameworks in the US and Europe require a human c... Read the full IIPLA blog post: https://iipla.org/blog/ai-generated-music-and-copyright-lessons-from-the-phonograph-s-legal-evolution