MUSIC & THE LAW:
COPYRIGHT, PLAGIARISM & AI

WHAT IS MUSIC COPYRIGHT?

If we can all agree that music is an art form where music artists, creators, and industry professionals should be allowed to make enough money off of their work that they are not starving in the streets, then it would follow that the ability to copyright and enforce copyright of musical works (ideas, sheet music, recordings, etc.) is an important and necessary structural element of this industry. Yet with the subjectivity of music as an art form and inspiration leading to imitation, the music industry has become an ever-increasingly litigious landscape over the last hundred years.

Based on information provided by the U.S. Copyright Office, here are a couple things musicians should consider when copyrighting their work or ensuring they do not infringe on the copyright of others:

• Each new piece of music developed by an artist should have both the MUSICAL WORK (the song’s composition; essentially the sheet music including the lyrics) and the SOUND RECORDING (a recording created by the composer, artist, producer, record company, or combination thereof) copyrighted in order to avoid other artists profiting off of their original work.

• Artists should consider REGISTERING their work in order to have a public record of their copyright. To register a piece of music, an artist will need to complete an application (typically online) that includes paying a fee and submitting a copy of the work.

  • Artists might also want to TRADEMARK their artist or band name to avoid duplication or any other sort of artist fraud or infringement. Check out the Lady A Artist Trademark Controversy from 2020 for why this matters!

• Sampling or otherwise drawing inspiration from a preexisting piece of music is possible BUT it’s not as easy as just taking what you want. You typically need to ensure that:

  • The earlier piece is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN (this is music that has a specific age to it - based on the Music Modernization Act of 2018, it must be a musical work that either a) was published over 95 years ago or b) was written by a composer who died over 70 years ago) or …

  • You have acquired permission to sample, use, or borrow elements of the other piece of music by the rights holder (who may or may not be the original artist or composer as rights can be bought and sold like any other asset!) or …

  • Your usage meets FAIR USE or any other statutory limitation (such as non-profit/educational use, amount and substantiality of the original work, and the value of the original work).¹

If you’re confused or overwhelmed, you’re not alone! The indefinable and subjective nature of music makes it a great challenge to lock down whether or not a newer piece of music infringes the copyright of an older piece of music (thus potentially damaging the reputation and earning potential of the older piece and artist). Many, many music artists as well as their record companies and lawyers have gone to court in the United States to argue the originality or derivation of music throughout the music industry’s history to great success and failures of individual artists. Below, check out ten notable copyright cases that have sprung up over the years, paying close attention to the original song and the new song that brought it to court.

TOP 10 BIGGEST COPYRIGHT CASES IN AMERICAN MUSIC HISTORY

1. MILEY CYRUS SUED: AN ANSWER TO “WHEN I WAS YOUR MAN”

SUIT: "Tempo Music Investments, LLC v. Cyrus et al"
DATE: 2025 (ongoing)
CLAIM: While it’s widely understood that Cyrus’ “Flowers” is an ANSWER SONG (a song written specifically as a reaction to an earlier song created by another artist), the music rights subsidiary of Warner Brothers Music, Tempo Music Investments, claims that the song is too similar in melodic, harmonic, and lyrical content to the original and is suing Cyrus for royalty rights. Currrently, Cyrus has been denied the request to drop the charges and the case will go to court.²

THE SONGS:

2. PARAMORE IS BACK: OLIVIA RODRIGO’S “GOOD 4 U” TOO AUTHENTICALLY “MISERABLE”

SUIT: Paramore v. Olivia Rodrigo
DATE: 2021
CLAIM: Former Disney star, Olivia Rodrigo’s music career took off like a rocket in the early 2020’s and she quickly became known for an edgy pop-punk sound that threw back to popular trends of the early 2000’s. Her hit song “Good 4 U” hit no. 1 on the Billboard charts but fans of the early 2000’s band Paramore soon drew comparisons between Rodrigo’s chart topper and the earlier band’s song “Misery Business”. In order to avoid going to court, Rodrigo gave WRITING CREDITS to Hayley Williams and Josh Farro of Paramore about three months after “Good 4 U”s release. Williams and Farro now receive 50% writers credit (and the associated royalties) any time the song is played or performed.³

THE SONGS:

3. “MY SWEET LORD, HE’S SO FINE”

SUIT: Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs
DATE: 1976
CLAIM: George Harrison (guitarist and sometime-singer, -songwriter of The Beatles) released “My Sweet Lord” in 1970 where it was the biggest hit of the year in the UK as well as topping the charts in America and internationally. The song was dedicated to the Hindu god, Krishna, who Harrison had begun to study and worship during his time studying Hare Krishna in England and India. The song came under fire upon release based on its similarities to the 1963 hit released by the New York-based girl group, the Chiffons entitled “He’s So Fine” which was written by Ronnie Mack. Eventually, Harrison was found guilty of "subconscious plagiarism" and had to pay over $1.5 million to the rights holders of “He’s So Fine”. To this day, Harrison contends that he was inspired by the public domain Christian church hymn, “Oh Happy Day” rather than the hit by the Chiffons.⁴

4. COPYRIGHTING “VIBES”

SUIT: Marvin Gaye Estate v. Robin Thicke & Pharrell Williams
DATE: 2015
CLAIM: Artist Robin Thicke and producer Pharrell Williams paid the estate of Marvin Gaye $5.3 million dollars after a court found that their 2013 hit, “Blurred Lines” violated the copyright of the late Marvin Gay’s “Got To Give It Up” including a combination of hard-to-define musical elements including tempo, rhythmic features, instrumentation, and even the background noise of a party as a unique ambient element of the track. This copyright case based on the “vibe” of a track may have set a dangerous precedence in music law where artists’ work could fall under litigation for ambiguous elements of their songs and recordings.⁵

5. A SUBSTANTIAL GUITAR RIFF

SUIT: Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin
DATE: 2014
CLAIM: The band Spirit, represented by the estate of Randy Wolf (the band’s guitarist and singer), sued Led Zeppelin in 2014, 40 years after Zeppelin released their massive success, “Stairway to Heaven”. In the case, Spirit’s representatives made the argument that the now incredibly famous opening guitar riff of “Stairway to Heaven” was near-identical to the guitar riff in Spirit’s 1968 instrumental, “Taurus”. In a surprising turn of events, the judge hearing the case found Led Zeppelin “not guilty” of plagiarizing Spirit’s “Taurus”, ruling that the two songs were not sufficiently similar to one another.⁶

6. SAM SMITH BACKS DOWN

SUIT: Tom Petty v. Sam Smith
DATE: 2015
CLAIM: On the release of Sam Smith’s “Stay With Me” in 2015, Tom Petty sued over similarities with his “I Won’t Back Down” from 1989 during his career with The Heartbreakers. Sam Smith claimed that the melodic and harmonic similarities were a complete coincidence and he had neither heard the song “I Won’t Back Down” nor of Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers (hard to believe as it was No. 1 on the Rock chart and No. 12 on Billboard Hot 100!). Smith settled with Petty out of court, granting Petty and his “I Won’t Back Down” co-writer, Jeff Lynne, 12.5% writers credit. Petty claimed to have no hard feelings, citing that typically an even accidental plagiarism such as Sam Smith claimed would have never made it out of the studio without someone on the production team catching it. Petty shared with journalists: “The word lawsuit was never even said and was never my intention.”⁷

7. A BITTER SWEET ROYALTIES BATTLE

SUIT: The Rolling Stones v. The Verve
DATE: 1997
CLAIM: The Verve became an instant success with their 1997 song, “Bitter Sweet Symphony” but it was quickly determined that it borrowed heavily from a 1965 orchestral arrangement of The Rolling Stones’ “The Last Time”. The Rolling Stones and Andrew Oldham (the arranger of the orchestral version of “The Last Time” that was copied by The Verve) took The Verve to court in two separate cases and were eventually awarded 100% of the royalties of the newer song. Lead singer and lyricist of The Verve, Richard Ashcroft, felt quite bitter and was quoted as saying: “I'm coming for that money. Someone stole God-knows-how-many million dollars off me in 1997, and they've still got it,” as recently as 2018. In the following year, The Rolling Stones and Oldham gave up their claims to “Bitter Sweet Symphony”, returning rights to the members of The Verve.⁸ (note this case is actually British rather than American …)

8. VANILLA ICE UNDER PRESSURE … FOR JUST TWO NOTES

SUIT: Queen & David Bowie v. Vanilla Ice
DATE: 1990
CLAIM: A famous case involving just two pitches started when Vanilla Ice released “Ice Ice Baby” in 1990. The breakout early rap record’s consistent underlying bass line had a startling similarity to the Queen and David Bowie collaboration “Under Pressure” that was released in 1981. While only the bass line (and tempo!) were consistent through the song, to make matters worse, Vanilla Ice referenced the bass line in his lyrics multiple times throughout the song. Interestingly, the bass line only has two notes (a D and an A) but the iconic and repetitive rhythmic motive of the line is what was called into question. The two bass lines are nearly identical except that in “Ice Ice Baby”, there is one extra D in a two-measure sequence where the bass line of “Under Pressure” has a rest (silence). Without taking Vanilla Ice to court, Queen and David Bowie threatened litigation and eventually settled for an undisclosed percentage of writing credit on “Ice Ice Baby”. A while later, Vanilla Ice is reported to have purchased the copyright of “Under Pressure” directly for approximately $4 million dollars in order to avoid having to continue paying out royalties to the writers of “Under Pressure”, claiming purchasing the rights to “Under Pressure” would save him more money in the long run.⁹

9. KEEP ON SAMPLING

SUIT: Salsoul Orchestra v. Madonna
DATE: 2013
CLAIM: In 1990, singer Madonna released the song “Vogue”, a fresh pop hit that included a 0.23 second sample of a HORN (in pop music, the horn line typically consists of saxophones, trumpets, and trombones - a throwback to the wind instruments used in the jazz big band swing era of the 1930’s) hit from the song “Lovebreak” by Salsoul Orchestra who recorded their song in 1976. Salsoul Orchestra took Madonna to court and it was ruled in 2013 that the 0.23 second sample was DE MINIMIS or too insignificant a portion of the original song to make a copyright infringement case.¹⁰

10. PARODY: IT’S KINDA GANGSTA

SUIT: No actual legal suits
DATE: 1983 - Present
CLAIM: One artist who has built their career on skirting copyright infringement is “Weird Al” Yankovic. The comedy musician makes his living off of composing and performing PARODY songs - songs that imitate the style and characteristics of particular artists in an over-exaggerated fashion for comedic effect. Yankovic’s lyrical content is also typically at odds with the original song’s themes and message, heightening the humor. Yankovic has been able to get away with a career in this niche area of music due to the U.S. Copyright Office’s rule on Fair Use Protection which protects parody as free speech in the United States. Yankovic typically attempts to get permission from artists he plans to parody although his requests and releases aren’t always met with the most enthusiasm. Famously, rapper Coolio lost his temper when Yankovic released “Amish Paradise” as a response to his “Gangsta’s Paradise” a year after the original release in 1995. He later retracted his statements and admitted to overreacting. Ironically, “Gangsta’s Paradise” samples heavily from Stevie Wonder’s 1976 “Pastime Paradise” but in this case, Wonder was allowed to give feedback on Coolio’s song before release and is reported to have requested that the explicit language be cleaned up before the final cut was made. While there has been controversy across Yankovic’s career, he is generally well-liked in the music industry and many artists appreciate his parodies (like Michael Jackson and Nirvana) and recognize a bump in their own sales following Yankovic’s releases. Regarding working with original artists in the music business, Yankovic said: “I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. I don't want to be embroiled in any nastiness. That's not how I live my life. I like everybody to be in on the joke and be happy for my success. I take pains not to burn bridges.”¹¹

MUSIC IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Since 2022, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become widely used by people across professions, art forms, and in daily life. While many expound on AI’s benefits to society (making research and decision-making simpler, helping to complete more menial tasks or allowing for faster scientific and technological breakthroughs than humanity was previously capable of), the presence of AI in our lives comes with a cost. In the music industry, the use of AI often outruns cultural and legal norms leading to surprising outcomes. Below are some recent critical events in music as the art and industry grapple with AI.

In March of 2023, the first piece of legislation on AI-generated music was passed in Tennessee (home of Nashville, Music Capitol of America). The ELVIS ACT established the inclusion of voice in Publicity Rights which already included name, image, and likeness. This legislation renders it illegal to use anyone’s voice in the creation of content without their permission. In July of 2024, the NO FAKES ACT was introduced in the US Senate which would make the ELVIS Act a federal law.

Later in 2023, SUNO, a music AI program, announced $125 million in funding. This music AI model can compose lyrics, melodies, instrumental lines, and work with voices in just a few clicks. However, controversy surrounds this program as Suno was trained on copyrighted material without gaining permission or paying for the rights. Its investors think the risk of being sued by various parties in the music industry is worth the likely payoff of this new competitor in the field. By June of 2024, both Suno and UDIO (another music AI model) were sued by Warner Music Group, Sony Music, and Universal Music Group for copyright infringement. The still pending case states that AI could “saturate the market with machine-generated content that will directly compete with, cheapen and ultimately drown out the genuine sound recordings on which [the services were] built.”¹²

In 2024, UMG (Universal Music Group) allowed its contract with TikTok to expire resulting in the removal of all UMG catalog music from the platform (both for new content and pre-existing content). This decision was made in order to avoid AI models from training on this content mined directly from TikTok.

THE STRANGE CASE OF MICHAEL SMITH

In 2024, the first trial involving streaming music fraud ended with the defendant, Michael Smith, being found guilty of wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy. As the record showed, Smith embarked on a music streaming scheme in 2017 that allowed him to steal more than $10 million in royalties until he was caught. The scam worked by Smith using AI to generate thousands of low-quality songs quickly that he then uploaded to multiple streaming platforms under multiple fraudulent artist names and accounts. He then trained more bots to “listen” to the AI-generated songs across the platforms, racking up listenership in order to earn royalties in the way legitimate artists do on these same platforms.¹²

SPOTIFY & AI

In 2023, the music streaming platform Spotify launched a new feature, DJ X, an AI model that replicates old school radio DJs by sharing facts about songs between tracks and modifies a listener’s playlist based on what the user likes and is already listening to. In addition to this feature, SONG PSYCHIC and DAYLIST are also designed to create hyper-specific listening experiences for each user on the platform. Spotify also has started to use AI to create a user-based “Wrapped AI podcast” which narrates the listener’s Wrapped list in the tone of an NPR host conversation. Music industry professionals are concerned about this growing trend of passive listenership without any curation or selection taking place on the part of the listener as Spotify has never made an effort to help their consumers become more informed or engaged with their listening experience.¹³

In December of 2024, American music historian TED GIOIA released an article on his substack, The Honest Broker, entitled “The Ugly Truth About Spotify Is Finally Revealed” in which he outlined the facts surrounding an almost conspiratorial company policy at the music mega-streamer to undercut living artists and make or save the company millions of dollars in streaming revenue.

Gioia contextualizes his research by citing an alarming trend he noticed in his Spotify jazz playlist where more and more “unknown” artists began to shuffle in (as a jazz musician and aficionado, Gioia was surprised to continually see new names he had never before heard of). When he began to research the artists, he was alarmed to discover that the majority of these unknown artists were based in Sweden (Spotify’s home country) and not only that, “An obscure Swedish jazz musician got more plays than most of the tracks on Jon Batiste’s We Are—which had just won the Grammy for Album of the Year (not just the best jazz album, but the best album in any genre).” - Ted Gioia

Another Spotify listener also began to research and created a playlist of the identical, nondescript, boring track that showed up with different titles and artist credits (that all sounded like AI-generated “word salad”). Gioia began to speak about this issue with Liz Pelly, the author of a new book Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Cost of the Perfect Playlist, who said: “What I uncovered was an elaborate internal program. Spotify, I discovered, not only has partnerships with a web of production companies, which, as one former employee put it, provide Spotify with ‘music we benefited from financially,’ but also a team of employees working to seed these tracks on playlists across the platform. In doing so, they are effectively working to grow the percentage of total streams of music that is cheaper for the platform.” In essence, it appears that Spotify has been paying AI companies and other quick, for-profit producers to create generic, nondescript background music in order to flood Spotify playlist and recommendations with music 100% owned by the company, drowning out the voices of living artists working hard to make a living by garnering listenership on the powerful and influential streaming platform.

In addition to the shady plot to replace living artists with AI-generated music, Spotify has also developed a “Perfect Fit Content” (PFC) program where musicians are paid for delivering tracks directly, selling the rights to their songs directly to spotify and giving up all claims on future royalties. Spotify is especially interested in owning songs in genre categories where there is more passive listenership like ambient, classical, electronic, jazz, and lo-fi beats where their audience is less likely to notice that they are listening to unknown (or even AI) artists who’s music is owned by Spotify. Spotify has gone on company record telling its employees that listeners will not notice the difference or care.

The situation above is a modern day example of PAYOLA, an illegal practice in the early days of radio through the 1950’s where radio DJs (or even live band leaders) were bribed into playing the music of certain artists and record companies more frequently - even if they had not garnered popularity on their own. This practice was outlawed in 1959 after the US legislature launched an investigation into the music industry. To date, Daniel Ek, Spotify’s CEO, has made the most money off of the music industry as a single individual in the history of popular music - yes, even more than Taylor Swift. His current net worth is said to be upwards of $4.8 billion (as of 2024).

Gioia finishes his article by calling upon congress to investigate the unethical and potentially illegal practices of Spotify in their new AI usage. He also suggests that music streaming platforms ban the promotion of songs based on financial incentives (Payola) and urges musicians and record companies to reclaim music from “untrustworthy technocrats”.¹⁴

HEART ON MY SLEEVE (2023)

In 2023, TikTok user Ghostwriter977 dropped a track purportedly recorded by Drake and The Weeknd (two Toronto pop artists who have collaborated since 2012 on tracks like “The Ride” and “Live For”). For these two artists’ huge fan bases, the new song was an instant and unexpected viral hit - but it was soon revealed that neither Drake nor The Weeknd had actually participated in its production. Instead, it was revealed that Ghostwriter977 (an anonymous music producer) had created the deep fake song using AI to produce the beats, lyrical, and other content of the song including the impersonation of Drake and The Weeknd’s iconic voices.

Drake took to social media to denounce the deep fake song’s release and his record company immediately made moves to block AI companies from utilizing Drake’s online discography (which is how they are trained on his vocal stylings to replicate his voice in the first place). This case raises the question of not only intellectual property but PERSONALITY/LIKENESS RIGHTS and how AI has the ability to plagiarize an individual’s voice and vocal stylings.

Interestingly, Drake went on to deepfake Tupac’s voice on his “Taylor Made Freestyle” as part of his beef with Kendrick Lamar following the Ghostwriter977 deepfake. Tupac’s estate responded with a cease and desist letter sent directly to Drake.¹⁵

Another recent AI-fake was released on TikTok in April of 2024 during the infamous Drake vs. Kendrick Lamar rap beef that stirred the internet and followers of this public verbal brawl. “One Shot” was originally attributed to KENDRICK LAMAR and fans initially assumed it was Lamar’s latest release in a battle that included songs like “First Person Shooter”, “Taylor Made Freestyle”, and what would eventually become 2024’s Song Of The Year, Lamar’s “Not Like Us”. But it turned out the song was created and released by real-life LA-based hip-hop artist SY THE RAPPER. Sy has claimed that he wrote the beat and used AI to finish the track in Lamar’s signature style but many fans of Kendrick found it hard to believe, citing how authentic the track sounded. Regardless, Sy the Rapper has enjoyed a boost in his fanbase following “One Shot” going viral - which leads to the interesting notion that smaller artists may be able to gain attention by releasing their songs faking bigger artists with the use of AI.¹⁶

In a Wired article by C. Brandon Ogbunu and Lupe Fiasco, the authors present three possible responses to AI arriving on the music scene:

• Full Surrender: allow AI to create music and hope that curation and critical response from “neo-influencers” weeds out the poor quality

• Healthy Hybrid: use AI to reimagine or remix pre-existing, human-generated music; create fun projects like duets with deceased artists but keep AI a separate entity that does not generate “original” music

• Humanity Appreciation: choose, as a society, to uphold human-generated art and deign it with the value it deserves; move away from AI-generated art in culture¹⁶

BENEFITS VS. DRAWBACKS OF AI IN MUSIC

Whether you’re all for AI-generated music or find it abhorrent, there’s no mistake that the use of AI in music has its advantages and disadvantages. Below are some arguments for both camps. Where do you fall in this debate?

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Copyright Office. “What Musicians Should Know about Copyright.” U.S. Copyright Office, 2021, www.copyright.gov/engage/musicians/.

2. Brittain, Blake. “Miley Cyrus Must Face Lawsuit over Claims She Copied Bruno Mars Hit.” Reuters, 19 Mar. 2025, www.reuters.com/lifestyle/miley-cyrus-must-face-lawsuit-over-claims-she-copied-bruno-mars-hit-2025-03-19/.

3. Savage, Mark. “Olivia Rodrigo Gives Paramore a Writing Credit on Good 4 U.” BBC News, 25 Aug. 2021, www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-58327849.

4. Meyers, Julia. “Former Beatle George Harrison Loses Plagiarism Lawsuit.” EBSCO Information Services, Inc., 2022, www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/former-beatle-george-harrison-loses-plagiarism-lawsuit.

5. Kesslen, Ben. “Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams to Pay $5 Million in Final “Blurred Lines” Verdict.” NBC News, 14 Dec. 2018, www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/music/robin-thicke-pharrell-williams-pay-5-million-marvin-gaye-estate-n947666.

6. Blistein, Jon. “A New Led Zeppelin Court Win over “Stairway to Heaven” Just Upended a Copyright Precedent.” Rolling Stone, 9 Mar. 2020, www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/led-zeppelin-stairway-to-heaven-copyright-infringement-ruling-appeal-964530/.

7. Kreps, Daniel. “Read Tom Petty’s Statement on Sam Smith Settlement.” Rolling Stone, 29 Jan. 2015, www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/tom-petty-on-sam-smith-settlement-no-hard-feelings-these-things-happen-35541/.

8. Tsioulcas, Anastasia. “NPR Choice Page.” NPR.org, 2019, www.npr.org/2019/05/23/726227555/not-bitter-just-sweet-the-rolling-stones-give-royalties-to-the-verve.

9. Syed, Arjumand. “Queen & David Bowie v. Vanilla Ice | Music Copyright Infringement Resource.” Blogs.law.gwu.edu, blogs.law.gwu.edu/mcir/case/queen-david-bowie-v-vanilla-ice/.

10. “Madonna Wins Vogue Copyright Case in US Appeal Court.” The Guardian, 2 June 2016, www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jun/03/madonna-wins-vogue-copyright-case-in-us-appeal-court.

11. Edgars, Geoff. “How “Weird Al” Eclipsed (Almost) Every Star He Ever Parodied.” Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com/sf/style/2017/02/16/how-weird-al-eclipsed-almost-every-star-he-ever-parodied/.

12. Robinson, Kristin. “The 10 Biggest AI Music Stories of 2024: Lawsuits, ELVIS Act, ‘BBL Drizzy’ & More.” Billboard.com, 2024, www.billboard.com/lists/biggest-ai-music-stories-2024-drake-tiktok-lawsuits/.

13. Cunningham, Kyndall. “Spotify Wrapped Misses the Mark with This One Joyless Feature.” Vox, 5 Dec. 2024, www.vox.com/culture/389869/spotify-wrapped-google-ai-music-streaming.

14. Gioia, Ted. “The Ugly Truth about Spotify Is Finally Revealed.” The HonestBroker, 19 Dec. 2024, www.honest-broker.com/p/the-ugly-truth-about-spotify-is-finally.

15. Coscarelli, Joe. “An A.I. Hit of Fake “Drake” and “the Weeknd” Rattles the Music World.” The New York Times, 19 Apr. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/04/19/arts/music/ai-drake-the-weeknd-fake.html.

16. Ogbunu, C. Brandon and Lupe Fiasco. “Music Can Thrive in the AI Era.” WIRED, 21 Dec. 2024, www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-music-human-creativity/.