Evaluation of the Legal and Institutional Frameworks for Artificial Intelligence and Artistic Equity in the Music Industry

Mary Omeyi Ekoja

doi:10.47134/ajplpe.v3i1.151

Authors

Mary Omeyi Ekoja Faculty of Law, Bingham University, FCT Abuja, Nigeria

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47134/ajplpe.v3i1.151

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence, Music Industry, Copyright Law, Artistic Equity, Authorship, Voice-Cloning, Intellectual Property, Generative AI, Music Regulation, Digital Creativity

Abstract

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the music industry has generated unprecedented legal, economic, and ethical challenges that existing intellectual property frameworks appear ill-equipped to resolve. This article evaluates the adequacy of current legal and institutional frameworks in addressing the multifaceted implications of AI for artistic equity in the music industry, with particular emphasis on copyright ownership, voice-cloning technologies, AI training datasets, authorship principles, and the economic vulnerability of independent artists. Drawing on doctrinal legal analysis and a comparative review of scholarly and policy literature, the study identifies critical regulatory gaps arising from the application of traditional copyright law to AI-generated creative works and examines the institutional limitations of regulatory agencies, collecting societies, and digital platforms in monitoring and enforcing artists' rights within an automated creative environment. The findings reveal that prevailing copyright systems — anchored in the principle of human authorship — are fundamentally unsuited to determining ownership of AI-generated music, assigning liability for unauthorized use of copyrighted training data, or protecting artists' personality and identity rights against AI replication. The article further demonstrates that the commercialization of AI-driven music production has intensified economic inequality within the industry, disproportionately disadvantaging independent musicians and culturally diverse creators. In response, the article proposes a comprehensive reform agenda encompassing statutory clarification of AI authorship and copyright standards, mandatory licensing and disclosure obligations for AI training datasets, strengthened personality rights protections against voice-cloning, enhanced institutional capacity and expertise within copyright regulatory bodies, and coordinated international governance through organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and UNESCO. The article concludes that effectively protecting artistic equity in the AI era requires not merely incremental legal adjustment but a fundamental reconceptualization of authorship, ownership, and creative value that centers human artistic dignity alongside technological innovation.

References

R. Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020.

B. Andersen, “Artificial intelligence and copyright ownership in the music industry,” J. Intellect. Property Law, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 45–67, 2021.

L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, and P. Johnson, Intellectual Property Law, 6th ed. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2022.

D. L. Burk, “Copyright and artificial intelligence,” Chicago-Kent J. Intellect. Property, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1–18, 2019.

A. J. Cockfield and J. Pridmore, “A synthetic age for music and copyright regulation,” Int. Rev. Law Comput. Technol., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 211–229, 2021.

J. E. Cohen, Between Truth and Power: The Legal Constructions of Informational Capitalism. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2019.

G. Davies and K. Garnett, Moral Rights. London, U.K.: Sweet & Maxwell, 2018.

D. Gervais, “The machine as author,” Iowa Law Rev., vol. 105, no. 5, pp. 2053–2092, 2020.

P. Goldstein and B. Hugenholtz, International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice, 4th ed. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2021.

A. Guadamuz, “Artificial intelligence and copyright,” WIPO Mag., no. 5, pp. 14–19, 2017.

E. Hemmungs Wirtén, “Artificial intelligence, creativity, and copyright dilemmas in digital culture,” Inf. Cult., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 403–421, 2020.

J. Karaganis, Ed., Media Piracy in Emerging Economies. New York, NY, USA: Zone Books, 2018.

M. A. Lemley and B. Casey, “Fair learning,” Texas Law Rev., vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 743–785, 2021.

S. M. McJohn, “AI-generated music and ownership rights,” Entertainment Sports Lawyer, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 8–15, 2020.

P. S. Menell, “Artificial intelligence and intellectual property law,” Berkeley Technol. Law J., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 315–356, 2019.

M. O'Brien, “Digital ethics and AI creativity in modern music production,” J. Media Ethics, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 27–41, 2022.

P. Samuelson, “Allocating ownership rights in computer-generated works,” Univ. Pittsburgh Law Rev., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1185–1228, 2017.

M. Senftleben, “Copyright limitations and artificial intelligence,” IIC – Int. Rev. Intellect. Property Competition Law, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 395–412, 2020.

A. Smith, “Voice cloning technologies and personality rights in entertainment law,” Harvard J. Law Technol., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 455–482, 2021.

R. Towse, A Textbook of Cultural Economics, 2nd ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing, 2021.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), WIPO Technology Trends 2019: Artificial Intelligence. Geneva, Switzerland: WIPO Publications, 2020.

P. K. Yu, “Artificial intelligence and intellectual property law policy,” Ohio State Law J., vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 345–398, 2020.

N. Ziv, “AI-generated creativity and the future of music regulation,” Entertainment Law Rev., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 179–192, 2022.

European Parliament, Intellectual Property Rights for the Development of Artificial Intelligence Technologies. Brussels, Belgium: European Union Publications, 2020.