Learn — By WATMM Desk —
Myth check: "You can't copyright any song made with AI"
After the US Supreme Court turned away Stephen Thaler's appeal in March 2026, headlines said AI works get no copyright, and that became "any song made with AI can't be copyrighted". Our verdict: misleading. US law refuses protection to purely AI-generated material, not to songs where a human used AI as a tool.
Key facts
- The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter (No. 25-449) on 2 Mar 2026.
- The Copyright Office says AI tools that assist rather than stand in for human creativity do not affect copyright protection, and that copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material.
- Prompts alone are not enough to make you the author, per the Office's January 2025 report.
The claim: "You can't copyright any song made with AI."
Verdict: misleading. In the US, material a machine generated on its own gets no copyright. A song where a human wrote, sang, played or meaningfully shaped the result keeps protection for that human part. This is about US law as we read it on 26 Oct 2026, and it is not legal advice.
Where the claim came from
On 2 Mar 2026 the Supreme Court denied the petition in Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving in place the D.C. Circuit's March 2025 decision. The next day CMU ran the headline "No copyright for AI-generated works in US as Supreme Court refuses to intervene in earlier landmark ruling". The article itself is careful: it says that work is protected if a human uses AI as part of the creative process, and that entirely AI-generated works are not. But headlines travel without their articles, and "AI-generated works" quietly became "anything made with AI" in reposts and comment threads.
What the rule actually says
The Copyright Office's January 2025 report on copyrightability sets out the line:
- Using AI tools "to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output."
- Copyright protects a human author's original expression "even if the work also includes AI-generated material."
- It "does not extend to purely AI-generated material", or material where the human had too little control over the expressive elements.
- With current generally available technology, prompts alone do not give enough control to make you the author.
- Your own work that is perceptible in the output, and your creative selection, arrangement or modification of outputs, can be protected, judged case by case.
The report gives a music example. The Office registered a Randy Travis sound recording made with a special-purpose AI vocal model built from a human voice, because AI was used as a tool rather than to generate the expression.
What we think
The myth is harmful in two directions. It scares off producers who use AI for stems, mastering or a vocal effect, who have no reason to think they've lost their rights. And it hides the real catch for people who type a prompt into a song generator and release the output as is: under the Office's reading, the generated music itself is likely unprotected, so anyone could copy it. The useful question is never "did I use AI?" but "which parts did a human make?" Keep your drafts, lyric sheets and session files, because those are what show the answer.
For the paperwork side, see how to register and release an AI-assisted song in 2026.
Sources
- Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability, US Copyright Office (primary source). Accessed 26 Oct 2026.
- Docket No. 25-449, Thaler v. Perlmutter, Supreme Court of the United States (primary source). Accessed 26 Oct 2026.
- No copyright for AI-generated works in US as Supreme Court refuses to intervene in earlier landmark ruling, CMU. Accessed 26 Oct 2026.
Researched with AI assistance, written and checked by WATMM Desk.