Raw LLM Responses

I want to bring as much clarity as possible to the discussion around AI-generated music, and I’d like to offer a perspective shaped by several decades in the advertising industry. In traditional practice, if I hire a person or entity—such as a recording studio—to create a song or jingle, and my company pays for that work, the copyright belongs to us, not the hired creator. This falls under established copyright law as a “work for hire.” A similar principle should apply to AI-generated music. When a music creator pays for access to an AI platform and crafts a detailed, original prompt—specifying genre, length, instrumentation, mood, and other elements—that process involves meaningful human authorship. The resulting work would not exist without that human input. A unique prompt is not passive; it is a creative act that shapes the outcome in specific and intentional ways. Therefore, in my professional view, AI-generated songs created through human prompting should be considered copyrightable by the individual who authored the prompt. They should also be fully eligible for commercialization and monetization. It is already accepted that a human composer cannot legally create a direct sound-alike of another artist’s work. Similarly, AI users are restricted from prompting systems to replicate specific copyrighted songs. While it is widely understood that platforms like Suno have been trained on large music catalogs, they generate outputs that are new—