Algorithmically Generated Music and Its Implications on Copyright
When thinking of music, many people may first equate the process of composition with ingenuity and originality. The “creative artist” has been romanticized into someone whose musical compositions just magically manifest into their mind—like an act of higher power. However, utilizing algorithms to pull sources for samples or even compose music has been around for quite a while—in the 90s, beloved David Bowie developed his own called Verbasizer, which scanned literary source material to randomly compose new lyrics.[1]. Now, there are a number of programs that center around using artificial intelligence (“AI”) to produce various components of music—Sony’s Flow Machines, Spotify’s Creator Technology Research Lab, Google’s Magneta NSynth Super, to name a few examples.[2] Artists may use computer softwares for different purposes; some may use AI for score synthesis, which sets the actual composition and is usually used for acoustic instruments, or for sound synthesis, which pays more attention to the way the sound will come through on a loudspeaker.[3] None, however, solely rely on AI to produce a song. On a subjective level, AI-generated music seems to be missing something—perhaps that is the human touch or emotion needed to tie everything together.[4] In another light, artists may refrain from relying entirely on AI because those works have not yet been awarded copyright protection.[5]
As recently as February of 2022, the U.S. Copyright Office refused to grant copyright protection for a completely AI-generated visual work of art.[6] The image was created using a program called Creativity Machine, owned by Stephen Thaler.[7]. The work was titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” and was created without any human help—entirely through the computer software.[8] Thaler attempted to list the program as the work’s author and sought copyright protection as the machine’s owner.[9] “Thaler must either provide evidence that the work is the product of human authorship or convince the Office to depart from a century of copyright [legal theory],” the Copyright Board stated, “He has done neither.”[10]
The ruling provides both frustration for users and relief to artists, depending on their stance on AI. Those who use AI to generate works of art may feel that the machine itself deserves protection, like Thaler who created the program himself. Others, like many traditional artists, may find comfort in the Copyright Board’s emphasis on protecting the human creative process.[11] For those concerned with the risk of AI innovation replacing human roles in the music industry, it may be helpful to consider the history of AI-assisted music composition and how it has shaped modern music as it is known today.[12] However, so long as there are entities tasked with the mission of protecting human works, like the U.S. Copyright Office, artists may take comfort in knowing that the distinct, personal quality of their music is still prioritized over algorithmically generated compositions.
Footnotes
