44% of music is not made by humans – what is actually happening on streaming platforms?

According to Deezer’s 2025 creator study, 75,000 songs are uploaded to the platform every day – 44% of which are AI-generated. This is not a future scenario. It is today’s reality, with direct legal and economic consequences for every creator.

Royalties on streaming platforms are calculated on relative share of plays. As AI content grows, the proportional share held by human-created music shrinks – and with it, creators’ income.

This is not a theoretical threat. It is a measurable economic harm that existing copyright law was not designed to address.

Who can hold copyright – and why AI systems cannot?

Copyright – the set of exclusive economic and moral rights that arise automatically for a creator at the moment a work is created, without any registration requirement.

Across all major jurisdictions, copyright authorship requires a human creator. This is the settled position of the US Copyright Office, confirmed in Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023), and reflected in EU law under Directive 2019/790 (DSM Directive). An AI system, however sophisticated, has no legal personality and cannot be an author.

A work generated entirely by an AI system has no copyright owner and enters the public domain immediately upon creation.

Economic rights – the right to reproduce, distribute, publicly perform a work and collect remuneration. In the EU these subsist for the author’s lifetime plus 70 years (DSM Directive, Art. 1).

Moral rights – the right to be identified as author and to object to derogatory treatment. These rights are inalienable and do not expire at the end of the economic rights term.

Originality – the threshold requirement for copyright protection. A work must reflect the author’s own intellectual creation and free creative choices – not the automated output of an algorithm.

Can AI-generated works receive copyright protection in the EU?

Short answer: no – if the work was generated entirely autonomously by an AI system.

Longer answer: it depends on the structure of the creative process.

• Where a human formulated an original idea, selected, arranged and edited AI-generated elements – the creative contribution may be sufficient for protection.
• Where a human entered a single prompt and accepted the first output without any creative choice – the legal basis for protection is very weak.
• EU DSM Directive 2019/790, Art. 17, confirms that creative tools, including AI tools, do not generate independent rights in the resulting work.

METIDA’s IP team notes: case law in this area is still developing across the EU. Creators who actively use AI tools in their commercial work should document their creative process thoroughly. A formal copyright assessment helps establish whether – and to what extent – your work qualifies for protection.

How AI systems train on your work – and what the law now requires

The training data used by popular AI systems – including music generators such as “Suno”, “Udio” and “MusicLM” – incorporated vast libraries of copyright-protected content, frequently without the rights holders’ consent. This has triggered significant litigation in the US and ongoing regulatory debate in the EU. For a broader EU-level overview, see the European Commission’s copyright guidance.

EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), entering full force in 2025–2026, requires providers of general-purpose AI models to publish summaries of training data – including copyright-protected works used for training (Art. 53). This creates the first enforceable transparency mechanism in the EU.

Text and data mining (TDM) exception under DSM Directive Art. 4 permits use of copyright-protected works for commercial AI training unless the rights holder has opted out. Creators and publishers can – and should – exercise this opt-out right.

EU / UK / US: how the major jurisdictions approach AI and copyright

The EU AI Act applies as a directly effective regulation in all 27 EU member states – no national implementation required. EUIPO has not yet issued specific guidance on AI-generated works, but WIPO is actively consulting on an international framework. The UK’s Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) launched a consultation on AI and IP in 2024; its outcome may affect the unique ‘computer-generated works’ provision of the CDPA 1988 (s.9(3)).

Practical steps: how creators and businesses can protect their work in 2026

Copyright arises automatically upon creation – registration is not required. In the AI era, however, documenting the creative process becomes strategically critical.

1. Document your creative process. Keep drafts, session files, version histories. This evidences originality and the human creative contribution that underpins your claim to protection.
2. Exercise your TDM opt-out right. If your work is publicly available online, you can formally state that it may not be used for AI training (DSM Directive Art. 4).
3. Review your platform agreements. Ensure contracts with platforms explicitly address whether your work may be used for AI training, and on what terms.
4. Register with a collective management organisation (CMO). CMOs affiliated with EUIPO and WIPO collect and distribute royalties and represent members in international policy forums.
5. Seek specialist IP advice. If you use AI tools commercially, or believe your work has been used without consent, METIDA’s copyright team assesses each case on its facts.

Frequently asked questions

Does a song generated entirely by AI have copyright protection in the EU?

No. Under EU DSM Directive 2019/790 and established EU case law, copyright authorship requires a human creator. A work generated autonomously by an AI system has no copyright owner and is immediately in the public domain.

If I used AI tools in creating my work, do I still hold the copyright?

Yes – provided your creative contribution is substantial and original. Courts and IP offices look at whether you made genuine creative choices in selecting, arranging and shaping the output. Document the process carefully.

Can an AI company use my recordings or compositions for training without my consent?

EU AI Act Art. 53 requires providers to disclose training data from 2025 onwards. DSM Directive Art. 4 gives rights holders the right to opt out of commercial TDM use. You should assert this right formally if your work is publicly accessible.

What is the difference between economic rights and moral rights in copyright?

Economic rights cover reproduction, distribution, public performance and remuneration – they can be transferred or licensed and subsist for the author’s lifetime plus 70 years (EU). Moral rights – primarily the right of attribution and integrity – are inalienable and do not expire. See WIPO’s copyright overview for a comparative summary.

Can I commercially use AI-generated music I commissioned?

Legal risk remains. Although the AI-generated output itself has no copyright owner, the training data may have incorporated protected works without authorisation. Before commercial use, we recommend a legal clearance review.

How do I find out whether my work was used to train an AI model?

EU AI Act Art. 53 will require providers to publish training data summaries. You can also contact the AI platform directly, or instruct METIDA’s IP team to pursue disclosure on your behalf.

The author of the article is Attorney-at-Law, Patent Attorney Erikas Saukalas.