Site icon Notes on Napkins

FAQ: Understanding How, When, and If to Use AI for Songwriting at SongU.com

Sara Light

The challenge of responding to the rapid rise of AI in song creation is an ongoing discussion in both the music industry and at SongU. Legal and philosophical considerations enter the conversation, creating differing responses, interpretations, and confusion. Several of the legal implications, including intellectual property rights, the use of AI models trained on copyrighted material, and what constitutes human expression, are still to be determined.

But we do know some things. In late January 2025, the official report by the Register of Copyrights, Copyright, and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability, released new information and guidelines that help clear up some of the legal questions, including a critical one – “Can my AI-generated songs be copyrighted?” 

Since this is a rapidly changing subject, this document is not meant to be legal advice. Instead its purpose is to explain how and why we’ve adopted our policies regarding AI at SongU. When in doubt, you should always contact a qualified entertainment attorney who specializes in intellectual property or copyright law.

Ok, let’s address the copyright question and other questions that have been commonly asked at SongU.com in recent weeks.

What is copyright, and why does it matter?

Copyright protects your creative work and ensures that you, the songwriter, can control how it is used, performed, and licensed. Without copyright protection, anyone could use your song freely, including for commercial purposes, without your permission. Technically, the moment you create and fix your song in a tangible form (such as writing it down or recording it), it is automatically protected by copyright. However, registering your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office provides official proof of ownership and strengthens your legal standing in case of a copyright dispute.

If you transfer or assign your copyright ownership to a music publisher, the publisher gains control over how the song is used and licensed. In this case, the publisher receives the publisher’s share of royalties while you continue to receive the writer’s share.

Here’s a real-world example: When Paul Simon wrote, recorded, and published The Sound of Silence in 1964, he had no way of knowing that in 2015, the hard rock band Disturbed would re-record (“cover”) and release it as a single. Their version became a hit and reached #1 on the Billboard Hard Rock Chart. Because Paul Simon was the copyright owner at the time, he received royalties from the song’s performance and mechanical licenses. In 2021, Paul Simon sold his entire songwriting catalog to Sony Music Publishing for approximately $250 million. As a result, Sony now owns the copyright to The Sound of Silence and his other songs. Moving forward, Sony—not Paul Simon—will collect all publishing income and control how his songs are licensed or used while Paul Simon continues to collect the writer’s share of the income.

What’s the correct terminology to use?

Misinformation and incorrect terminology about a song’s copyright often leads to confusion. So, first we need to agree on clear definitions.

What’s the big deal about using AI-generated music and lyrics?

Now that we understand copyright and the correct terminology, let’s talk about what happens when AI-generated music and/or lyrics enter the picture. As of January 28, 2025, the U.S. Register of Copyrights ruled that AI-generated works (lyrics or melody) cannot be copyrighted unless there is a “sufficient amount of human expression.” If AI generates any part or all of your melody based on your lyrics, the AI-generated portion is not eligible for copyright. Even if an AI Platform’s Terms of Service allow you to use AI-generated material commercially, according to the U.S. Copyright Office, you cannot claim ownership or copyright on that material because it lacks human authorship.

Back to Paul Simon. If generative AI existed when Paul Simon wrote The Sound of Silence, and rather than writing his own original music, he let AI generate the music, the resulting music would not have been eligible for copyright protection. Since there would be no human author, it would have no legal owner and, like an uncopyrightable work, could be used by anyone without restriction.  Anyone could use that music for their own purposes and profit. They could even add their own human-authored lyrics to it, in which case their new lyrics would be eligible for copyright protection, but the underlying music still would not be since it was rendered by AI, not written by a human.

Does re-working AI-generated music or lyrics make them mine and eligible for copyright?

Making edits to AI-generated material does not grant full copyright ownership, nor does “putting your own spin” on the production. Only the portions that you change with significant human transformation are eligible for copyright protection—AI-generated portions remain ineligible. Modifications or rearrangements are not enough to establish human authorship.

What If I used prompts to get the music or lyrics exactly how I want? According to the U.S. Copyright Office, if you write only the lyrics and AI generates the music, you can only copyright the lyrics, not the melody or the full song (lyrics + melody). Similarly, if you compose the melody but use AI to generate the lyrics, only the melody is copyrightable. Prompting AI to generate a melody or lyrics—no matter how detailed —does not qualify as human-authored.

An analogy: Let’s say you’re a woodworker who designs and handcrafts furniture. Your handcrafted furniture, designed, shaped, and built by a human, is considered an original work of craftsmanship and can be copyrighted. Compare this to a person using a computer-controlled furniture-making machine (a CNC) that automatically carves, shapes, and assembles furniture based on digital instructions. While you provide input, the machine is doing the creative execution.

In the same way, writing lyrics or a melody yourself is like handcrafting furniture—you’re the creator, and it’s copyrightable. However, prompting AI to generate a melody or lyrics is like inputting a design into a CNC machine. It follows your instructions, but you are not considered the creator under copyright law.

I’m a lyricist who does not write the music. When can I claim a copyright to a song?

Is there a problem with using AI to demo my song?

This question has both legal and philosophical considerations. A demo is a recorded version of a song (melody + lyrics) used for pitching or reference. If AI is used only for demo production (e.g., AI-generated vocals or backing tracks), but a human (or humans) wrote the underlying song (melody + lyrics), the song itself remains copyrightable. However, the AI-generated elements of the demo are not eligible for copyright protection as a sound recording because they lack human authorship.

Using AI to create a demo for a song you wrote (melody + lyrics) is generally acceptable, much like hiring session musicians to record a demo. The key distinction is that the AI-generated elements cannot be copyrighted as a sound recording. AI simply provides instrumentation or vocalization for your composition, which does not affect your copyright to the melody and lyrics. However, if AI generated any portion of the melody or lyrics, it is misleading to claim you “demoed” a fully human-written song. In such cases, you must disclose AI’s involvement in the songwriting process).

The philosophical dilemma. Many songwriters use AI to generate demos because the process is cost-effective and efficient. AI allows songwriters to experiment with production, tempo, and arrangement quickly. Some people argue that using AI reduces opportunities for real musicians and vocalists. Others note that technological advancements—such as Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs) like ProTools and Cubase—have also changed the industry. Some songwriters choose to have real musicians recreate their AI demos in the studio for industry credibility.

Can I pitch a song that uses AI at SongU?

Yes, with exceptions. A pitch guest will not accept AI-generated material in certain situations, such as when sync licensing restrictions apply.

However, for any pitch that does accept AI, you must clearly state how AI was used in your submission. This information must be included in the “notes to pitch guest” field and/or on the “lyric sheet” to ensure full transparency regarding AI’s role in your song. Use the following guidelines:

The takeaway: A human-authored song may utilize AI to create the demo, but if any part of the lyric or melody is AI-generated, the song must not be misrepresented as fully human-written in any pitch submission.

Why wouldn’t sync agents, music publishers, or artists want to hear an AI song?

Full transparency is required when pitching AI-assisted songs at SongU.com so pitch guests can make informed decisions based on legal, financial, and other considerations.

Can I bring my AI-generated (or partially AI) song to a SongU song feedback course and/or submit it to a coach for a song evaluation?

Some instructors in our live Song Feedback Courses (FDBK) may be open to discussing AI-generated songs as part of the educational process. However, they may choose not to provide detailed feedback on AI-generated portions of a song. Some may only offer general comments on the overall feel, while others may decline to evaluate AI-generated material entirely.

Our song evaluation coaches generally focus on human-authored songwriting. While some may provide feedback on AI-assisted songs, they are not required to review AI-generated portions. We have asked all our coaches to add a note in their coaching philosophy area about how they intend to handle AI-generated content.

If you submit a song with AI-generated elements, you must disclose this upfront so the instructor or coach can determine how to proceed.

What if I register an AI-generated song without disclosing AI’s involvement? Who’s going to know?

Falsely claiming AI-generated content as human-created when registering a work with the U.S. Copyright Office can lead to serious legal and professional consequences. Music publishers and licensing agents require clear copyright ownership, and misrepresentation can permanently damage your credibility and future opportunities in the music industry.

In addition, knowingly submitting an AI-generated work as fully human-created is considered a false statement on a federal form and can result in:

The takeaway: Misrepresenting AI-generated work as human-authored is not worth the risk.

Will AI-generated songs become more accepted in the future?

Possibly. But as of now (February 2025), music publishers, sync agents, and labels still rely on traditional copyright protections. AI-generated songs remain difficult to license because they lack clear ownership and cannot be copyrighted, making rights management uncertain for commercial use.

The U.S. Copyright Office is preparing a third report, which may address the legal implications of AI training on copyrighted works and how AI-assisted content should be handled. Additionally, ongoing lawsuits against AI companies could set legal precedents that influence copyright policies for AI-generated music.

Some companies, such as Monarrch and Humanable, are developing systems to track AI-generated content and identify copyrighted material used in AI training. If widely adopted, such systems could lead to new licensing models for AI-assisted songwriting that ensure compensation for original copyright holders. Currently, the long-term adoption and use of these solutions remains to be seen.

Where can I find reliable information about copyright and AI?

For the most up-to-date and legally accurate information, we recommend:

For industry perspectives on AI and licensing, you may also check:

Be cautious of outdated, misleading, or non-authoritative online sources. Some websites promote false claims about AI disclosure rules or suggest ways to bypass legal requirements, which could put you at risk of copyright violations or legal consequences.

As of February 2025, the most recent guidance on AI-generated music and copyright law is found in the U.S. Copyright Office’s report, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability, which provides the current legal stance on AI-generated music and lyrics. We recommend staying informed on new developments since AI copyright laws may continue to evolve.

How should I proceed?

Songwriting has always been about human creativity and originality. The rise of AI does not change that—it remains the songwriter’s role to craft meaningful lyrics and melodies that resonate with listeners. Generative AI is a powerful tool, and like any tool (e.g., rhyming dictionaries), it can assist in the creative process. However, AI should enhance, not replace, human ingenuity. The most successful songwriters develop their craft through experience, emotion, and originality—qualities AI cannot replicate.

AI makes it easy to generate music at the push of a button, but the Copyright Office report clearly states that copyright protection requires human authorship. True artistry comes from human creativity and experience. Those who dedicate time and effort to honing their craft bring value to the music industry and should be rewarded for their originality.

Author’s note: I couldn’t have written this document without the help and assistance of my long-time creative collaborator and co-founder of SongU.com, Danny Arena. In addition to being a professional songwriter, he also happens to be a Professor of Computer Science at Vanderbilt University (where he’s currently helping to design their Generative AI minor).

Exit mobile version