On World Intellectual Property Day, we analyze how AI is transforming music creation and the legal implications it raises.
Every April 26, World Intellectual Property Day is celebrated, marking the entry into force, in 1970, of the Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This date highlights the importance of intellectual property (IP) in areas such as culture, art, innovation, and technological development.
This year’s edition focuses on the impact of IP on the world of music: how copyright helps preserve a dynamic, diverse, and sustainable musical ecosystem. A timely focus, especially considering the new player transforming the industry: artificial intelligence (AI).
AI and Music: Creative Collaboration (and Conflict)
Artificial intelligence has been quietly integrating into the music sector for years, so it is not really a new player. It already plays an important role in various areas, from recommendation algorithms on platforms like Spotify to tools that assist in mastering or improving sound quality.
However, the accelerated development of generative models has taken this technology to a new level. Today, AI not only assists but also composes, mixes, performs, and even mimics human voices. And this is where multiple legal questions arise, affecting both creators and tech platforms.
Two intellectual property attorneys from the firm PONTI & PARTNERS analyze this emerging scenario.
Prior and Subsequent Rights and Human Intervention
For AI to learn, it must first be trained. To do so, various works, melodies, or voices are used, even if there is no clear commercial purpose. Imma Miralles, an IP lawyer, states that “if a work is protected by copyright, its use for training AI should require the author’s authorization.” Therefore, “the protection should be the same as that afforded to any work protected by its author,” concludes Imma.
And what about the creators? This is a murky area, as it depends on various factors, such as the degree of human intervention. As Imma explains, if AI is only a tool to produce sounds or effects, “the human creator retains copyright.” But if the use goes further, and the entire piece is generated by artificial intelligence, authorship and the corresponding rights will be entirely different. Susana Correa, another lawyer specializing in intellectual property, agrees, considering that “if human intervention is minimal, the creator might not have rights over the resulting work.” And what constitutes minimal participation? Susana explains: “it would be when the creator does not substantially modify or enrich the work, allowing AI to be the main party responsible for determining the final result.”
Just as there are rights, user responsibility when using AI must also be considered. As Susana recalls, and in line with the above, “the user of the tool is not exempt from responsibility. If the final result incorporates elements that, taken together, can identify or refer to a previous creation, infringement may be understood to exist, even without intent to copy. The law does not always require an intention to imitate but focuses on the work’s effect and the perception of the public or the affected rights holder.”
Regarding users and creators, Susana adds: “Current legislation recognizes only natural persons as authors, not automated systems. In this context, when a work is created with AI involvement, the user’s role becomes crucial. If the user has influenced the work by setting creative parameters, modifying results, or making key decisions during the process, they could be recognized as the author or, at least, the principal party responsible for the final product. This contribution must involve a minimum level of creativity, originality, and deliberate decision-making that directly affects the final product. It is the human intervention that brings artistic value.”
And the Voice? A Highly Personal Right
In this regard, another complex area emerges: voice cloning. Susana Correa reminds us that “the voice is protected under personality rights. Imitating or replicating an artist’s voice without their authorization can constitute a violation of their vocal identity rights, with legal consequences.” “Beyond the legal framework, these practices raise important ethical questions regarding the use of technology to replicate unique human characteristics, reinforcing the need for special caution and respect for artists’ rights. The use of artificial intelligence in music creation does not exempt users from responsibility and requires greater awareness of the legal and ethical boundaries of the digital environment”, Susana concludes.
The relationship between artificial intelligence, music, and intellectual property rights is complex, dynamic, and constantly evolving. As technology advances, it will become necessary to review regulatory frameworks and adapt traditional legal concepts to a new creative reality.
In this changing landscape, the key will be to find the balance: protecting the rights of authors and artists without stifling innovation that can enrich (but never replace) musical creation.
