A song generated by an AI system from a text prompt alone is not protected by copyright in the United States, according to the U.S. Copyright Office's January 29, 2025 report on copyrightability. Protection can still apply to the parts a person wrote, selected, arranged, or modified, such as original lyrics or a hand-edited arrangement. Separately, the major record labels sued two AI song generators in 2024, and several of those disputes ended in licensing deals in late 2025.
Key takeaways
- The Copyright Office concluded that, with current generally available technology, prompts alone do not give a user enough control to be the author of the output.
- Human-written lyrics, and human selection, arrangement, or modification of AI output, can still be protected.
- Universal Music Group and Udio announced a settlement on October 29, 2025, and Warner Music Group and Suno announced one on November 25, 2025.
- Terms of the deals were largely undisclosed, and later developments were not confirmed in the sources checked for this article.
What the Copyright Office decided about AI-generated songs
The Office's report, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability, was published on January 29, 2025. It addresses all generative AI outputs, not only music, and it rests on the existing human authorship requirement in U.S. law. The report states that copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or to material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
On prompting, the report reasons that prompts act as instructions that convey unprotectable ideas, and that even highly detailed prompts do not control how a system produces its output. Music industry commenters cited in the report made the same point, noting that moving from words to audio requires interpretation by the model, so the user's control over the finished recording is indirect. The Office also said that copyrightability is decided case by case and that the case for new, special protection for AI-generated content had not been made.
Which human contributions can still count
The same report separates three kinds of human input: prompts, expressive inputs, and modifications or arrangement of the output. Only the first was found insufficient on its own. The table below restates the report's conclusions for a songwriting setting. The song scenarios are illustrative examples, not registration decisions.
| Illustrative scenario | Likely treatment under the Office's reasoning |
|---|---|
| A user types a text description of a style and mood and keeps the generated track unchanged | The prompt does not supply authorship of the audio, so the generated track is not protected. |
| A songwriter writes lyrics and the system sings them | The lyrics remain protected as the writer's own expression where they are perceptible in the output; the generated performance is a separate question. |
| A producer selects and arranges generated segments into a new structure | The creative selection and arrangement can be protected, though not the unprotected segments themselves. |
| A musician edits or re-records generated material with original changes | Creative modifications can be protected if they meet the originality standard, judged case by case. |
| A film or video uses a generated music bed | The larger human-authored work stays protected, even if the bed alone would not be. |
Registration is a practical consequence. The Office has a separate registration guidance document for works containing AI-generated material, dated March 16, 2023, that the Office's AI page still lists. Canada has no equivalent report checked for this article, so a Canadian reader should treat the U.S. material as one national position, not a general rule.
The label lawsuits and the licensing deals
In 2024, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Records sued the AI song generators Udio and Suno, according to wire reporting on the later settlements. The suits alleged copyright infringement. Universal's complaint against Udio pointed to generated songs that closely resembled two well-known existing songs.
On October 29, 2025, Universal and Udio announced a settlement and new license agreements covering recorded music and publishing, with financial terms undisclosed. The two companies said they would build a subscription platform, planned for 2026, in which artists set permissions and generated songs stay inside a closed environment. Udio stopped letting users download songs it had generated as part of the change, which drew complaints from subscribers.
On November 25, 2025, Warner Music Group and Suno announced a settlement. Suno said it would introduce new licensed models in 2026 to replace its current ones. Songs made on the free tier could be played and shared but not downloaded, while paid users receive monthly download limits. Warner was also reported to have settled with Udio. Whether Sony Music or Universal resolved their claims against Suno, and whether the licensed products launched on schedule, was not confirmed from sources available for this article.
Practical questions before releasing an AI-assisted track
These checks follow from the sources above and are general information, not legal advice. Anyone releasing music for money should consult a lawyer who handles music copyright.
- Read the current terms of service of the tool used. The deals above changed what users could do with outputs, including downloads, and such terms can change again.
- Keep dated records of human contributions: lyric drafts, stems, edits, arrangements, and the order of work. The Office's case-by-case test looks at what a person actually controlled.
- Do not assume that a clean-sounding output is free of resemblance to existing songs. The Udio complaint cited above concerned outputs that echoed known works.
- Treat registration, distribution platform rules, and collecting-society membership as separate questions from copyright, each with its own requirements.
What remains unsettled
Two questions are open. The first is whether courts will treat training on copyrighted recordings as infringement or as fair use; the 2025 settlements ended some cases without a ruling. The second is how much human control over a generative tool is enough for authorship, which the Office says depends on facts and may be revisited as technology changes. The report itself says the Office will keep monitoring developments.
FAQ
Can an AI-generated song be copyrighted in the United States?
Not on the strength of a prompt alone. The Copyright Office said that prompts do not give sufficient control, though human-written lyrics and creative human edits or arrangements can be protected.
Are lyrics written with a chatbot protected?
Text produced wholly by a system is not protected under the Office's reasoning. A writer's own original wording, and creative changes made to generated text, can be. The line is drawn case by case.
Did Suno and Udio settle with the record labels?
Udio announced a settlement with Universal on October 29, 2025, and Suno announced one with Warner on November 25, 2025. Reports also describe a Warner settlement with Udio. The status of Sony's claims was not confirmed.
Does this apply in Canada?
The Copyright Office report is a U.S. document. Canadian law was not reviewed for this article, so Canadian creators should seek Canadian advice before relying on it.
Related reading
- How an AI voice is built
- AI and visual art creation
- Designing an icon for AI
- Character AI beta overview
More in AI Tools and Industry.
Last verified: October 2026
Sources
- Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability, U.S. Copyright Office, January 29, 2025
- Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, U.S. Copyright Office, March 16, 2023 (as listed on the Office's AI page)
- Universal Music and AI song generator Udio settle lawsuit and partner on new AI music platform, wire report, October 30, 2025
- Warner Music Group settles copyright case with Suno for licensed AI music, wire report, November 26, 2025