AI, IP, and the symphony of human creativity in the music industry

FUNGAI CHIMWAMUROMBE AND JULIA MUSHATI

 

Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized the music industry, blending creativity with technology to redefine how music is created, produced, and experienced.

This technological advancement has introduced unprecedented opportunities for artists and audiences alike.

AI enhances efficiency, enables mass production, improves data analysis, eliminates biases, and significantly reduces costs, making it an indispensable tool for modern music production.

By processing vast and diverse datasets, AI systems recognize patterns and generate content that can often pass as human-created. However, while these systems have transformed the music business, they also raise critical questions about intellectual property (IP) rights, particularly regarding the ownership and regulation of AI-generated content.

The primary purpose of IP law is to incentivize creators by granting them exclusive rights over their works. Copyright law traditionally affords protection to human creations, enabling authors and rights holders to control and benefit from their works. However, AI systems, being non-human entities, cannot be incentivized in the same way, sparking debates about whether AI-generated content can be copyrighted and, if so, who owns the copyright.

Can AI Content Be Copyrighted?

Under Zimbabwean copyright law, creators are recognized as individuals of human nature. The Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act [Chapter 26:05] does not extend authorship to artificial intelligence. As AI lacks legal capacity, it cannot hold rights or be incentivized. AI is a tool that performs tasks mimicking human intelligence by collecting and analyzing data to identify patterns and make decisions.

It is therefore crucial to distinguish between AI-generated content and AI-assisted content in the context of music. AI-generated content is produced solely by AI systems, which analyze vast samples of existing music to create new compositions. In contrast, AI-assisted content involves the use of AI tools to support the creative process while still relying heavily on human effort and decision-making. For example, tools like BandLab and Lyrics Studio suggest lyrical ideas or create loops, but the human creator retains control over the final direction of the song.

Under Zimbabwean copyright law, AI-generated content cannot be copyrighted due to significant concerns about the use of copyrighted materials in AI training processes. This practice undermines the core purpose of IP law, which is to protect human creativity and grant creators control over their works. For instance, the use of globally recognized artists’ songs by TikTok users to generate new compositions often creates the false impression that the original artist was involved. Such practices raise substantial copyright infringement concerns.

However, AI-assisted content may qualify for copyright protection because these tools merely aid, rather than replace, human effort. This ensures an element of originality remains in the final product. Yet, even in such cases, questions of ownership arise.

Who Owns AI-Assisted Works?

Ownership of AI-assisted works is very complex and therefore,depends on the specific circumstances and the degree of human involvement. Traditionally, when a human composes and produces a song, they are recognized as the copyright owner. Where AI tools are used in the creative process, the person who directs the AI’s output and contributes substantial creative input is generally considered the copyright owner.

AI presents immense opportunities for the music industry, but it should serve as an enhancer, not a replacement, for human creativity. At the heart of copyright law lies the essence of human ingenuity—originality, effort, and the “sweat of the brow” that drive innovation. As AI continues to evolve, it is crucial to consider jurisdictional nuances in IP law and address questions about the ownership of AI-generated works. While some jurisdictions, such as the United States, explicitly state that copyright is reserved for human creations, Zimbabwean law must also adapt to ensure a balanced approach that protects human creativity while embracing technological advancements.

Fungai Chimwamurombe is a registered legal practitioner and Senior Partner at Zenas Legal Practice and can be contacted at fungai@ zenaslegalpractice.com 

Julita Mushati is a alegal intern at Zenas Legal Practice (Pvt) Limited and can be contacted on julitazenaslegalpractice.com and whatsapp 0772306088

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Back to top button