This is a repeated question on AI Music groups. In one such thread I posted:
Suno’s EULA conveys that Suno is a tool, and in regards to copyright of its output for paid subscribers provides users deminis content, like a plugin or effect; users own the copyright. Anyone claiming that people using Suno can’t claim copyright is ignoring the heaping piles of examples of what kinds of contributions have been established as deminis in music copyright long before AI tools were being used. If you’ve ever worked in a band you’re aware that there is a huge swathe of gray area here. Let’s consider a popular example. Mijac Music owns the entire copyright to “Beat It”. The contributions of no other contributor are disclosed in the copyright, and there are major contributions shaping the essence of the song, from Quincy Jones as producer to Eddie Val Halen as the performer of the guitar solo who reportedly helped shape the arrangement. This is not unusual. While it is becoming established from the US copyright office that the AI contribution of a work should be separated from the human contribution when filing for copyright (specifically regarding visual art and prose), the deminis aspect of the entire work in music is quite clearly not defined. In fact, quite the opposite. The guidance has been to state that it is considered on a case by case judgment. Given that Suno does not claim copyright, users assume control of it and can file copyright with the US Copyright Office without disclosing Suno’s role as it is deminis.
Then I posed this question to ChatGPT:
Is this a valid argument?
Here’s the response:
This argument is compelling and raises valid points, but it contains nuances that deserve close scrutiny to determine its strength and validity. Here’s a breakdown:
Key Points of the Argument:
- Suno as a Tool:
- The claim that Suno is a “tool” aligns with the perspective that AI services function similarly to musical plugins or effects. If the AI merely assists and does not independently create a work without significant human input, its role could indeed be seen as de minimis (too trivial to merit separate legal recognition).
- Ownership of Output:
- If Suno’s EULA explicitly states that users own the copyright to its paid output, it grants users control over the creative product, provided this is consistent with U.S. copyright law.
- Precedent in Music Copyright:
- The example of “Beat It” highlights how contributions that shape a song (e.g., producers, performers, or arrangers) often do not appear on copyright filings. Instead, ownership is typically concentrated with the songwriter or publisher. This underscores how music copyright often attributes ownership based on specific roles, rather than the granular contributions of collaborators.
- US Copyright Office Guidance on AI:
- The argument correctly acknowledges that the U.S. Copyright Office has issued guidance stating that AI-generated content must be disclosed and separated from human contributions in copyright applications. However, it also points out that the music industry’s treatment of de minimis contributions complicates strict enforcement in this context.
- De Minimis Doctrine:
- The concept of de minimis is used in copyright law to exclude contributions or uses deemed too insignificant to merit protection. If Suno’s contributions are considered de minimis, users might not need to disclose its role when registering their work.
- Case-by-Case Determination:
- The argument is correct in saying that copyright disputes involving AI and de minimis contributions will likely be resolved on a case-by-case basis. This reflects the current uncertainty in the legal landscape.
Strengths of the Argument:
- It leverages the historical treatment of de minimis contributions in music, making a persuasive analogy between traditional collaborators (e.g., producers) and AI tools like Suno.
- It aligns with the principle that copyright often prioritizes the person who provides the creative direction or authorship, even if others contribute to shaping the work.
- It emphasizes Suno’s EULA, which supports the user’s ownership claims.
Weaknesses and Challenges:
- Legal Gray Area:
- While the argument makes a case for treating AI contributions as de minimis, the U.S. Copyright Office’s guidance suggests that courts and regulators may increasingly scrutinize AI’s role in the creation process. This could challenge the notion that all AI contributions are inherently de minimis.
- Disclosure Requirements:
- Users who fail to disclose Suno’s role might face challenges if the AI’s contribution is later deemed significant enough to impact the copyrightability of the work. Failure to disclose could weaken their claim if challenged in court.
- Case-Specific Nature:
- The argument relies heavily on the fact that copyright decisions are case-specific, which cuts both ways. It leaves room for Suno’s contributions to be interpreted as more than de minimis in some cases.
The Current Guidance
When filing a song for copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office, it is necessary to disclose any material generated by artificial intelligence (AI). The Office’s guidance specifies that copyright protection is granted only to works created by human authors. Therefore, if your song includes elements produced by AI, you must identify and disclaim these portions in your application. This ensures that only the human-authored components receive copyright protection.
The U.S. Copyright Office has initiated an agency-wide effort to explore various copyright issues related to AI-generated content. This includes analyzing the current legal landscape, identifying unresolved matters, and evaluating potential areas for legislative action. As part of this initiative, the Office has been releasing reports addressing different aspects of AI and copyright law.
It’s important to note that the legal framework surrounding AI-generated content is evolving. Staying informed about the latest guidelines and policies from the U.S. Copyright Office is crucial when seeking copyright protection for works involving AI-generated material.
Conclusion:
The argument is valid but not foolproof. It provides a reasoned basis for users to claim copyright over works generated with Suno, especially when significant human input is involved. However, it also relies on unsettled legal principles and assumptions about how de minimis contributions will be treated in the context of AI. To strengthen the claim, users should:
- Clearly document their creative contributions to the work.
- Be prepared to disclose Suno’s role if its contribution becomes a point of contention.