AI in Music Production: To Listen or Not to Listen When Tech Outpaces Law
Written by Farrah Zerola | March 27, 2026
You might have heard a song that you liked on TikTok or Instagram and searched for it on Spotify, only to realize you couldn’t figure out who the artist or producer actually was. Increasingly, the answer may be that there isn’t one–the track may have been created by artificial intelligence. This raises a growing legal question: who owns, regulates, and profits from music generated by AI?
As AI becomes more popular, it comes as no surprise that it has affected many aspects of life, including creative ones. But, there are many implications of AI in the music industry that must be taken into consideration.
These songs have spread rapidly through short-form video platforms where clips of the songs can go viral regardless of the creator’s identity. AI music generation tools such as Suno, Udio, AVIVA and Boomy create full songs for users from just a text prompt. According to Sky News, 33% of recent music uploads are AI-generated, and a survey of 9,000 people across eight countries found that 97% of people could not detect a difference between AI and human produced music. As a result, the line separating a human artist from a machine begins to blur, threatening the value of human labor in music and creating massive legal issues.
There is a severe lack of disclosure that content is made–either in part or in full–with AI, and this impacts musicians and listeners alike. “A Million Colors”–a song that has garnered hundreds of thousands of uses in other videos, millions of views and appeared on TikTok’s “Viral 50” sounds–was produced by AI and yet not labeled as it. People unknowingly used the sound in their own videos, and when it was unearthed that it was AI, online outrage ensued. Along with the evident lack of platform disclosure rules and blatant consumer deceit, IP concerns are raised over the NIL of real artists.
But, the problem has only gotten worse. People hide behind AI-generated personas to market the music and make it seem as thought it was human produced. Sienna Rose on TikTok is just one example of this, hitting 3.3 million monthly listeners on Spotify this year. In fact, “she” actively tries to convince viewers that she is a human, saying things like “I feel real.” Many human artists have taken to social media to protest this movement in the industry, one citing it as a “slap in the face” (Shreea Kaul). These artists spend tens of thousands of dollars to mix and master music, and create visuals for music platforms, just for said platforms to give preferential treatment to music that took mere minutes to produce, compared to their decades of time and experience. U.S. copyright law protects original works created by humans, and it does not clearly address music produced by artificial intelligence. Additionally, consumer protection laws enforced by the Federal Trade Commission prohibit deceptive marketing practices, yet AI “musicians” are promoted online in a manner where people believe they are human. These AI personas occupy a legal gray area where IP and advertising regulations don’t currently do enough.
Beyond the costs to produce music, AI music reduces artist income by diverting streaming revenue and royalties. According to an article published by the United Nations, artists could see their revenue fall by 24% by 2028. And, it is likely that these AI generated songs aren’t just being listened to by people, but up to 70% of streams could come from bots in order to collect royalty payments (The Guardian). These ramifications culminate into reduced bargaining power of musicians. If record labels and media companies can generate music cheaply using artificial intelligence, the demand for human musicians may decline. This could weaken the bargaining power of artists and unions during contract negotiations, as companies gain an alternative source of production that does not require paying performers or royalties, and thus, fewer and fewer talented people get signed. Even using AI as just a tool for parts of the creative process like background music and instrumental tracks can have consequences, as these are types of work that often employ session musicians and emerging artists.
Artists have already come forward to demand protections. In 2023 during a strike involving SAG-AFTRA, musicians fought against the use of AI in studios to replicate actors’ voices or likenesses and generate performances without paying the original performer (NPR). The agreement now has specific rules about AI use and consent.
In 2023, a song by an anonymous creator called “Heart on My Sleeve” went viral, and AI was used to imitate the voices of Drake and The Weeknd. The song was removed for copyright due to complaints from record labels, but only after it gained millions of views and streams. Things like this raise quite a few legal issues. Copyright law has already been violated, but it raises the question of whether training AI on copyrighted music is a violation in and of itself. It also violates the Right of Publicity, or NIL Rights, which prevents others from using a person’s voice for commercial purposes without express permission. But with no one to prosecute given the incognito nature of this content, it is clear that current intellectual property law was not designed for generative AI, and it leaves many legal questions unanswered.
Taken all together, it is clear that the music industry is at a crossroads. AI could expand creativity, lower barriers to entry, and accelerate production. However, without regulation, it threatens human labor, undermines artist revenue, and exploits gaps in IP and advertisement law. AI challenges all of our current legal frameworks, and so laws and industry standards are urgently needed to protect both creators and consumers. Technological progress should not be halted, but legislation must catch up, and there has to be accountability in the meantime.
References
Artists face steep income decline due to AI, UNESCO finds. (2026, February 18). UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/02/1166989
Del Barco, M. (2025, June 11). Performers and video game companies reach deal that ends nearly year-long strike. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/11/nx-s1-5174160/video-game-strike-sag-aftra-agreement
Milmo, D. (2025, June 18). Up to 70% of streams of AI-generated music on Deezer are fraudulent, says report. The Guardian; The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/18/up-to-70-of-streams-of-ai-generated-music-on-deezer-are-fraudulent-says-report?utm
Musicful. (2025, October 31). Musicful Releases 2025 AI Music Industry Report: Market Size, Leading Tools, and Key Trends. OpenPR.com; openPR. https://www.openpr.com/news/4247251/musicful-releases-2025-ai-music-industry-report-market-size
Rowland Manthorpe. (2025, November 13). A third of daily music uploads are AI-generated and 97% of people can’t tell the difference, says report. Sky News; Sky. https://news.sky.com/story/a-third-of-daily-music-uploads-are-ai-generated-and-97-of-people-cant-tell-the-difference-says-report-13469818
TikTok - Make Your Day. (2026). Tiktok.com. https://www.tiktok.com/@shreeakaul?lang=en
