Learn — By WATMM Desk —
How to register and release an AI-assisted song in 2026: your distributor, your PRO and the Copyright Office
Three gatekeepers now ask about AI, and each asks a different question. The US Copyright Office wants to know which parts a human made, PROs want a human writer, and distributors increasingly care which tool you used and how it was trained. Here is what each rule says as of 23 Oct 2026, a checklist that covers all three, and the mistakes that cost artists money.
Key facts
- Copyright Office: since March 2023 applicants must disclose AI-generated material that is more than de minimis, claim only the human-made parts and file on the Standard Application. The Supreme Court declined to revisit the human-authorship rule on 2 Mar 2026.
- PROs: ASCAP, BMI and SOCAN register "partially" AI-generated works but not works created entirely with AI (28 Oct 2025). GEMA members must affirm at registration that a work was not made by the exclusive and autonomous use of AI.
- Distributors: DistroKid asks for AI credits, TuneCore only distributes music made with AI models trained on fully licensed data, and CD Baby says it cannot distribute AI-generated content.
An AI-assisted song is now checked three times: by your distributor at upload, by your performing rights organisation (PRO) when you register the composition, and by the US Copyright Office if you register there. Each asks a different question about AI.
This is a practical guide, not legal advice. Copyright rules are national. The Copyright Office material below applies to US registration, the PRO rules belong to each society, and everything is as we read it on 23 Oct 2026.
The Copyright Office: claim what you made, disclaim what the machine made
US copyright needs a human author. The Supreme Court declined to hear Stephen Thaler's challenge to that rule on 2 Mar 2026, so the lower court's ruling stands.
The Office's 2023 registration guidance sets out what applicants must do. You have a duty to disclose AI-generated material in the work and briefly explain what the human contributed. In practice:
- File on the Standard Application.
- In Author Created, describe the human authorship, for example the lyrics, melody, or your selection and arrangement of the parts.
- Exclude any AI-generated material that is more than de minimis under Limitation of the Claim, in the Other field under Material Excluded, with a short description such as "[description] generated by artificial intelligence".
- Don't list the AI tool or its maker as an author.
- If you aren't sure how to fill it in, say the work contains AI-generated material, and the Office will contact you.
The Office's January 2025 report on copyrightability explains where the line falls. Prompts alone don't make you the author of the output. But if you feed in your own work, such as a sung melody or a recording, and it is perceptible in the result, you are the author of that portion. Creative selection, arrangement or modification of generated material can also be protected, decided case by case. Assistive uses are fine. The report cites a Randy Travis track, made with an AI vocal model working from a human singer's performance, which the Office registered because AI was used as a tool.
Two consequences matter for money. First, the guidance points you to the Standard Application, and a 2023 Jenner & Block alert read the online system as making the cheaper Single Application and group options unavailable for such works. That alert is three years old, so check the form when you file. The Standard Application is $65 today and goes to $85 under the Office's new fee schedule, as we set out in our piece on the new fees. Second, under the guidance, leaving AI material out can cost you the registration: the Office may take steps to cancel it, and a court can disregard it if you knowingly gave inaccurate information that would have led to a refusal. If you have already registered without disclosing, the fix is a supplementary registration.
Your PRO: there has to be a human writer
On 28 Oct 2025 ASCAP, BMI and SOCAN said each now accepts works "partially generated" with AI, meaning works that combine AI-generated musical content with human authorship. Compositions created entirely with AI tools are not eligible at any of the three.
GEMA goes further on proof. Its anti-fraud information sheet says members must affirm at registration that they did not create the work by the exclusive and autonomous use of AI. If GEMA doubts a registration it can ask for evidence, such as scores or audio files, and hold payouts until it gets them.
Publishing administrators are applying the same test. TuneCore Publishing says the works it represents must be "substantially created by human songwriters". It runs AI detection across the catalogue it administers, and songs flagged as likely AI-generated may not be processed.
We could not find a published registration rule for AI works from PRS for Music or IPRS that we were able to open and read. If you are a member, ask them in writing before you register.
Your distributor: the question is shifting to the tool
One distributor's rule now asks about the model's training data, not how much of the track it made.
| Distributor | What it says about AI | What it asks you |
|---|---|---|
| DistroKid | Accepts music made with AI tools if you own 100% of the rights, don't impersonate anyone and aren't mass-generating spam | AI credits: lyrics, music, all of the audio, or part of the audio |
| TuneCore | Only distributes music made with GenAI models trained on fully licensed datasets, even if GenAI was used at only one point | Check each tool's training disclosures; Google Flow Music is the one approved partner it names |
| CD Baby | Its rights page says it can't distribute AI-generated content | Its parent's Downtown policy bans content made "wholly or primarily" by models trained without a licence, and AI that mimics popular artists |
CD Baby's two pages are not the same test: one is a blanket "no", the other targets unlicensed models. If you use CD Baby, ask support which applies to your track before you upload.
DistroKid also draws a useful line. Per its AI credits page, you don't need a credit for pitch correction, AI-assisted mixing or mastering, or AI-assisted workflows. It says Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube currently show these credits to listeners. Spotify backs a DDEX standard for AI disclosures covering vocals, instrumentation and post-production, and says it is "not about punishing artists who use AI responsibly". How each store then labels the track differs, as we set out in how platforms label AI music, and what happens when a detector disagrees with you is in our guide to false positives.
A checklist that covers all three
- Keep a creation log. Dated project files, stems, your own takes, prompts, and the name and version of every AI tool.
- Check the tool before you use it. If you might release through TuneCore, save a copy of the tool's training-data statement on the day you used it.
- Write one plain sentence about what AI did and didn't do on the track, and reuse it in your distributor credits, your PRO registration and your Copyright Office application.
- Credit generated parts, not processing. Use the "part of the audio" box for a generated stem. Mastering and pitch correction don't need a credit at DistroKid.
- Register only the human writers with your PRO, with splits among humans. No AI tool or company goes on a split sheet.
- File the Copyright Office application honestly. Claim the human parts in Author Created, exclude the generated parts, and treat the song and the recording as separate claims.
- Fix old filings. If you registered an AI-assisted work without disclosing, file a supplementary registration.
The pitfalls
- Assuming the tool's terms make you the owner. A generator's terms of service can say what you may do with the output. They don't make generated material copyrightable in the US; the Office decides that by looking for human authorship.
- Describing the same track three ways. "AI-assisted" at the distributor, "fully human" at the PRO and a disclaimer at the Copyright Office is the paper trail that makes a dispute worse.
What we think
These three gatekeepers measure different things. The Copyright Office looks at who authored each part. PROs look at whether a human wrote it at all. TuneCore, and CD Baby's parent, look at where the tool's training data came from. That last test is spreading, and it's the one artists can't check. Nobody can audit a model's training set from a terms page. TuneCore names one approved tool and tells artists to judge the rest from the vendor's own statements.
So the careful artist who uses one generated pad and says so carries the risk, while the facts that decide eligibility sit with the AI company. If distributors want training-data provenance to be the test, they should publish and maintain approved-tool lists and accept a single, standard declaration in the shared DDEX terms, instead of making each artist do vendor due diligence. Until then, the creation log is the one record you control. Keep it as carefully as your stems.
Sources
- Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by AI, US Copyright Office, 16 Mar 2023
- Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability, US Copyright Office, 29 Jan 2025
- Docket No. 25-449, Thaler v. Perlmutter, Supreme Court of the United States
- Client Alert: Copyright Registration for Works Containing AI-Generated Material, Jenner & Block, 10 Apr 2023
- ASCAP, BMI and SOCAN Announce Alignment on AI Registration Policies, SOCAN, 28 Oct 2025
- Fake Streams, GenAI & Beyond, GEMA
- GenAI and TuneCore Publishing, Explained, TuneCore Support
- TuneCore's GenAI Music Content Framework, TuneCore Support
- Can I Upload Music Made With AI Tools to DistroKid?, DistroKid Help Center
- What Are AI Credits? and How to Fill Out AI Credits, DistroKid Help Center
- Do I need to own all the rights to the music I'm selling? and Downtown Music Content Policy Rules, CD Baby Support
- Spotify Strengthens AI Protections, Spotify Newsroom, 25 Sep 2025
Sources
- Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence (88 FR 16190), US Copyright Office (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
- Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability, US Copyright Office (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
- Docket No. 25-449, Thaler v. Perlmutter, Supreme Court of the United States (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
- ASCAP, BMI and SOCAN Announce Alignment on AI Registration Policies, SOCAN (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
- Fake Streams, GenAI & Beyond: die GEMA ermittelt (Infoblatt), GEMA (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
- GenAI and TuneCore Publishing, Explained, TuneCore Support (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
- TuneCore's GenAI Music Content Framework, TuneCore Support (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
- Can I Upload Music Made With AI Tools to DistroKid?, DistroKid Help Center (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
- What Are AI Credits?, DistroKid Help Center (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
- How to Fill Out AI Credits, DistroKid Help Center (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
- Do I need to own all the rights to the music I'm selling?, CD Baby Support (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
- Downtown Music Content Policy Rules, CD Baby Support (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
- Spotify Strengthens AI Protections for Artists, Songwriters, and Producers, Spotify Newsroom (primary source). Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
- Client Alert: Copyright Registration for Works Containing AI-Generated Material, Jenner & Block. Accessed 23 Oct 2026.
Researched with AI assistance, written and checked by WATMM Desk.