AI Music Copyright: Who Owns an AI-Generated Song?

AI music copyright turns on human authorship. In the United States, AI-generated music is generally not protected when no human has made enough creative choices. Your own lyrics, composition and creative edits can be protected. A tool's terms may assign rights to you, but that is a contract question, not copyright.

This guide explains what the rules say as of October 2026, what counts as human contribution, and how to protect the parts of a song you make.

Can AI-generated music be copyrighted?

Partly. Copyright protects human authorship. If you write the lyrics or the composition, or you arrange, edit and select AI output in a creative way, the human part can be protected. Purely AI-generated material is not. The Copyright Office's position, in its 2025 report on copyrightability, is that copyright "does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements."

This is general information, not legal advice. Whether a particular song qualifies depends on the facts, and the Office decides these questions case by case.

What the US Copyright Office says

The Office published Part 2 of its report on AI and copyright on 2025-01-29. Its main conclusions are:

Using AI to assist human creativity does not affect whether the work can be protected.
Prompts alone do not provide enough control. The report says "prompts essentially function as instructions that convey unprotectible ideas."
Human authors can claim copyright in the parts of an output that are perceptible, in the creative selection and arrangement of material, and in creative modifications of the output.
The Office says "the case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI-generated content."
The conclusion that prompts are not enough applies "at present," on generally available technology.

Part 3 of the report, on generative AI training, was published in a pre-publication version on 2025-05-09. The Office says a final version will follow "without any substantive changes expected." We do not summarise Part 3 here.

Thaler v. Perlmutter and the Supreme Court

The case that set the main rule was Thaler v. Perlmutter. The D.C. Circuit affirmed on 2025-03-18 that the Copyright Act "requires copyrightable works to be authored by a human being." In that case the work was generated entirely by an AI system, and Thaler conceded it lacked traditional human authorship.

The Supreme Court denied review on 2026-03-02 (No. 25-449) without an opinion. So the Supreme Court did not rule on how much human involvement is enough for AI-assisted works. That question remains open. Commentators point to Allen v. Perlmutter in Colorado, which concerns a Midjourney image made with many iterative prompts. We did not verify its current status.

What counts as human contribution in a song

The table below applies the Copyright Office's conclusions to a typical song.

| Element | Protectable? | Basis | |---|---|---| | A prompt on its own | Not enough on current technology | Office report, Part 2 | | Lyrics you wrote that appear in the final audio | Yes, the human part | Office report, Part 2 | | A melody or performance you created that is audible in the output | Yes, the human part | Office report, Part 2 | | Creative selection, coordination or arrangement of AI outputs | Yes | Office report, Part 2 | | Creative modifications, such as editing or rearranging | Case by case | Office report, Part 2 | | Audio the AI generated without meaningful human control | No | Office report, Part 2 |

A few practical points follow. Writing a detailed prompt does not make you the author of the audio. Suno's help centre says writing the prompt does not amount to creating the song. The same help centre says lyrics you wrote may be registrable.

Ownership under tool terms is not copyright

A tool may say you own the output, and that statement matters for the contract. It is separate from copyright. Suno's help centre shows the split:

Basic (free): "Suno is the owner of the songs," and use is non-commercial.
Pro or Premier: "you own the songs."
Both: "the material may not be eligible for copyright protection."

Suno's terms, revised 2026-08-10 and effective 2026-09-03, use assignment language for paid users. They say Suno "makes no representation or warranty to you that any copyright will vest in any Output." Remixes are described as jointly owned with the remixer and may only be used non-commercially. So a paid plan can give you contract rights in the output without giving you a copyright you can enforce.

AI music copyright outside the US

United Kingdom. The UK government published its Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence on 2026-03-18, as the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 required. The report says the government "will not introduce a broad copyright exception for AI training." It recommends removing the protection for computer-generated works with no human author, under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The report is not binding, and no legislation has been introduced. A law firm summary says AI-assisted works "retain protection where a human makes creative choices." Sources differ on how firm the 9(3) position is, so treat it as a recommendation.

Germany. On 2026-07-31 the Munich Regional Court I ruled for GEMA against Suno in case 42 O 763/25. The court held that storing six musical works in the model infringes the reproduction right, and that outputs infringe the right of communication to the public. The court held Suno, not its users, responsible, and rejected a "complex prompting" defence. The judgment is not final, and an appeal is possible.

We did not research other countries, so this post does not cover them.

Training and the lawsuits

Training is the other side of the copyright debate, and the disputes are still open. Sony Music and UMG filed a new complaint against Suno in the District of Massachusetts in September 2026, covering 60,202 recordings. The labels say v6 is "the fruit of the same poisoned tree." Suno says the claims are "fundamentally flawed." Warner Music Group settled with Suno in November 2025. Udio settled with UMG and Warner.

For what those settlements mean for each platform's output, see our Suno vs Udio comparison.

How to protect your work

Write your own lyrics. Keep dated drafts so you can show when you wrote them.
Make creative changes. Rewrite, rearrange and re-record parts of the song. The Office treats creative modifications as protectable case by case.
Keep records. Note the tool, plan, prompts, versions and edits. These help show human involvement.
Record your own parts. A human performance or composition that is audible in the final track is a clear example of the contribution the Office describes.
Disclose AI when you register. The Copyright Office's registration guidance, published in the Federal Register in March 2023, asks applicants to disclose AI-generated content that is more than de minimis and to briefly explain the human contribution.
Read the terms of each tool. Plans, download rules and ownership language differ.

Music generation in OndaLabs

OndaLabs includes music generation on the Creator plan ($22 a month, 400,000 credits) and above. A clip costs 2,500 credits and a song costs 5,000. The steps above apply to music from any tool, including music made in the studio. We do not state who owns music made in OndaLabs or its copyright status, so check the terms of the plan you use before you publish. You can compare plans on the pricing page.

For the commercial licences behind royalty-free use, read our royalty-free music guide.

Frequently asked questions

Can AI-generated music be copyrighted?

Only the human-authored parts. The Copyright Office says purely AI-generated material is not protected, and prompts alone do not give enough control. Lyrics you write, your own performances and creative arrangement or editing can be protected.

Does writing a detailed prompt make me the author?

Not on current technology. The Copyright Office says highly detailed prompts can contain expressive elements, but at present they do not control how the AI processes them. Suno's help centre also says writing the prompt does not constitute creating the song.

Can I copyright lyrics I wrote with an AI-made track?

Lyrics that you wrote and that appear in the final audio can be protected as your human contribution. The Copyright Office describes human-written work that is perceptible in an AI output as protectable. Keep dated drafts to show that you wrote them.

Did the Supreme Court rule on AI authorship?

Not on how much human input is enough. The Supreme Court denied review of Thaler v. Perlmutter on 2026-03-02 without an opinion. The D.C. Circuit's earlier ruling still holds that copyright requires a human author.

Is AI music training on copyrighted songs legal?

That question is unsettled. In the US, the Copyright Office's training report is in pre-publication form, and label lawsuits against Suno are open. In Germany, the Munich court ruled against Suno in July 2026, but the judgment is not final.