When AI starts writing songs: have the borders of music protection changed?

26 April marks World Intellectual Property Day, with this year’s theme focusing on “music”. Platforms like Suno.com now allow users to generate complete, polished songs in seconds by inputting a story snippet and selecting a style. Amidst this rapidly advancing technology, a critical question arises: How should AI-generated music be legally protected, and is it eligible for protection at all?

Trade Mark Rights?

Distinctive musical segments — typically short, iconic audio identifiers — can be transformed into trade marks to obtain "perpetually renewable" protection. Classics include the Twentieth Century Fox films' opening theme [1], as well as China’s first successfully registered sound trade mark in 2016, the opening theme of China Radio International [2], among others. While AI-generated music could theoretically seek trade mark registration, the bar is prohibitively high: the music must avoid functional sounds (e.g., alarm beeps) and demonstrate strong brand association — a hurdle most AI creators cannot clear.

Copyright?

Copyright remains the primary shield for musical works. Though protection is not perpetual, its minimum 50-year term is already substantial. Globally, copyright hinges on two pillars: "originality" and “human intellectual creation.”

Disputes over human-created works often revolve around "originality," frequently entangled with plagiarism claims. For instance, British singer Ed Sheeran’s Thinking Out Loud faced two lawsuits alleging similarities to Marvin Gaye’s 1973 Let’s Get It On [3]. Notably, while countries like China, the U.S., Japan, and Korea offer voluntary copyright registration, most jurisdictions follow the Berne Convention’s "automatic protection" principle, rights arise upon creation, without formalities. To prove originality, Ed Sheeran even performed live in a 2023 New York court [4], and luckily, his singing convinced the jury! 

AI’s emergence complicates this framework. Does AI-generated content possess "originality"? Is it a "human intellectual creation"? This debate is raging.

Out of curiosity, I asked Suno to "create a female vocal urban folk-rock song honouring the brave girls who have broken through." In a few seconds, a song called “Rise Up Girl” [5] arrived - heartfelt lyrics, beautiful vocals, and a smooth melody. While I was amazed, I also wondered: is this effortlessly born masterpiece really mine?

Suno replied [6]: Paid users own generated content; free users are allowed to use those songs for non-commercial purposes, with ownership retained by Suno. As I did not pay, Rise Up Girl is not mine.

But is copyright something else? After all, ownership and copyright may not be the same thing.

Suno explained: Copyrights are complex, and vary by region! Pure AI-generated music would not qualify for copyright protection in the U.S. because the law only recognises human creativity and writing the prompt does not constitute the creation of the song; while it might be possible in other regions, local authorities may be consulted.

Does the U.S. not protect AI works?

The report issued by the U.S. Copyright Office [7] in January 2025 makes it clear that the current copyright system only protects creations with human intellectual contribution. Protection applies when creators use AI as a tool to exert substantial control over expressive elements, with outputs reflecting human-led creativity. In particular, the Guidelines note that, at this stage of technology, a mode of creation based solely on text-based prompts (even with sophisticated optimization) does not yet meet the criterion of substantial human control.

The Théâtre D'opéra Spatial case of 2023 is good example of this. Digital artist Jason Allen’s award-winning artwork, created via Midjourney through 624 prompts and 900 iterations (80 hours of work), was denied copyright registration by the US Copyright Office, which ruled [8] that prompts were mere tools (32.5% output variance proved unpredictability); 57.4% of core visual elements were autonomously generated by AI, with no dominant expression by human; and the output was a “machine-derived work”, although the creative text prompts may be protected by copyright separately. The case established dual criteria for AI works: human dominance over expression and output predictability. This landmark case awaits final federal court judgment.

The U.S. Copyright Office report also cites artist Kris Kashtanova’s Rose Enigma case. Her AI-generated artwork, created by Stable Diffusion from her hand-drawn sketch, received copyright only for the human-drawn portions, with a specific annotation by the U.S. Copyright Office on the registration certificate — “Registration limited to unaltered human pictorial authorship that is clearly perceptible in the deposit and separable from the non-human expression that is excluded from the claim.”

 (Left: "Rose Enigma" hand-drawn sketch; Right: "Rose Enigma" AI-generated artwork)

By this standard, Rise Up Girl is clearly not copyrightable in the U.S., and I am in no way the author. What Suno says is true.

Is China's approach different?

In November 2023, the Beijing Internet Court issued a judgment on the first AI image copyright case [9], holding that unauthorised use of the AI-generated images at issue constituted copyright infringement. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s input of hundreds of prompts and iterative adjustments demonstrated intellectual labor and originality, thus qualifying the AI output for copyright protection. The court’s rationale included: 1) Creative control — prompt complexity and parameter adjustments reflect human dominance; 2) Tool nature — AI is merely a technical means; 3) Protection boundaries — originality requires case-by-case assessment, but overly simplistic prompts may fail. Several subsequent cases followed the same logic, signaling China’s judicial stance is inclined towards: AI works are equivalent to traditional works if they meet "originality" and "human intellectual labour" criteria — with AI as a tool and the prompter as author. This "process-oriented" approach contrasts with the U.S. "output control" standard.

The judgment sparked widespread debate. Supporters praised it for balancing innovation and rights. Critics warn of AI’s mass-production capacity and randomness, fearing over-protection could invite abuse of rights. Some even argue that protecting AI works will distort the original purpose of the copyright system to incentivize human creativity, as AIs dominate the content generation process and human contributions are disproportionately low. This echoes the U.S. Copyright Office’s position.

On 18 April 2025, the most recent copyright dispute over AI-generated children’s chair designs ruled by the Zhangjiagang People’s Court was published [10]. The plaintiff used Midjourney with prompts like “cute children’s chair with jelly texture, shaped like a butterfly…” to create images, then shared prompts and images online, also seeking commercial partnerships. The defendant later used similar prompts to generate comparable designs and produced/sold products. The court rejected the infringement claim, stating: 1) The plaintiff’s minimal input — a single set of basic prompts without iterative refinements or manual edits (e.g., Photoshop) — demonstrated insufficient human control, evidenced by the AI’s inconsistent outputs from similar prompts; 2) The plaintiff’s prompts, though specifying elements like texture and shape, relied on common, unoriginal descriptors existing in prior designs; 3) The defendant’s final product, though inspired by the plaintiff prompts, diverged stylistically after AI regeneration and design refinements.

(Plaintiff’s AI-generated butterfly chair design)

(Defendant’s physical butterfly chair product)

This decision has, to a certain extent, adopted the U.S. Copyright Office's criteria, holding that AI-generated content must embody substantial human control over the creative process and the originality of the output in order to be protectable by copyright , but is not as stringent as the latter. Whether this signals a shift in China's judicial attitude towards AI works remains to be seen.

I can’t help but wonder: Had the plaintiff first hand-sketched the butterfly-shaped children's chair design and then combined the hand-drawn draft with tailored prompts she inputted to have the AI generate the design (as in the Rose Enigma case), would the verdict have been different?

Regardless, the few words I typed into Suno for Rise Up Girl would likely never secure copyright status in China, and I have no way of claiming authorship here.

Does the UK offer an opportunity?

As early as 1988, according to an article by our UK colleague Tia Ilana Acheampong [11], “computer-generated works” were already copyrightable objects in the United Kingdom for a 50-year period of protection, with the author being “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken”. Only the “necessary arrangements” need to be met. That seems to require very little human involvement. While the article notes that recent case law requires works to contain "the author’s own intellectual creation," a higher threshold than traditional "originality", still, the literal wording of the statute may finally give me the opportunity (albeit guiltily) to claim in the UK for the Rise Up Girl's authorship and celebrate World Intellectual Property Day this year!

Finally, take a listen to Rise Up Girl! Copyrighted or not, this song, created by the brief interaction between the spark of human thought and the energetic creation of AI, is truly beautiful!

"Rise Up Girl" 

 (Lyrics, Music & Vocals, auto-generated by Suno.com)

She walked through the dark with trembling strides

Shadows whispered lies she’d tried to hide

The weight of the world pressed hard on her chest

But deep down she knew she deserved her best

The city lights glared like truth in her face

Each step she took claimed her rightful space

She shed every fear like leaves on stone

The girl she was had now fully grown

Rise up girl, let your soul ignite

Stand tall in the blaze of your own light

Break the chains that held you down so long

You’re the fire, you’re the fight, you’re the song

Each scar carved lines of wisdom and grit

Every fall she faced taught her how to resist

Tall towers watched as she roared into the sky

No turning back, no more living a lie

Through the street echoes she finds her voice

Every broken dream now feels like her choice

A mosaic of strength pieced from the pain

She builds a world where she’ll reign

Don’t tell her she can’t, don’t say she won’t

She’s the thundering past the trembling ghost

No silence can hush the storm she’s become

Her battle’s won her dawn has come

References:

[1] https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/74629287.mp3

[2] https://news.cri.cn/2016-07-15/2c252d41-c002-385c-b896-ab6db811e3fb.html

[3] https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/ed-sheerans-second-thinking-out-loud-copyright-case-appealed-to-us-supreme-court/

[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65420860

[5] https://suno.com/song/54e6fcf1-99f5-4edc-b04e-10c1b1178034

[6] https://help.suno.com/en/articles/2746945

[7] https://copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf

[8] https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/Theatre-Dopera-Spatial.pdf

[9] http://www.ipforefront.com/m_article_show.asp?id=3697&BigClass=%E8%B5%84%E8%AE%AF

[10] https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/CwFl3luPKqDbpO3iT8ScWw

[11] https://www.marks-clerk.com/insights/latest-insights/102k38x-who-owns-the-content-generated-by-ai/