In more and more industries, the limits of AI’s legal jurisdiction are being questioned. The music industry is one of the most sensitive areas, where the rise of algorithms sparks not only technological, but also legal and philosophical debates. (European and US law is deifferent!)

AI-Generated Music = Royalty Obligations?

According to an official statement from Artisjus (the Hungarian society for authors’ rights), royalty payments must also be made for AI-generated music if it is played in public. That means if a restaurant, event, or online stream plays AI-generated music to an audience, it should be treated as royalty-bearing—just like any human-composed work.

In other words: if you publicly play AI-generated music, you’re still required to pay royalties.

When Is the AI the Author, and When Is the Human?

Dr. Péter Benjámin Tóth, Strategic and Communications Director at Artisjus, emphasizes a key distinction: if AI is used as a tool to assist a human creator, then the resulting work enjoys full copyright protection and can be registered as an original creation.

Royalty distribution in such cases is percentage-based—for example, according to the ratio between lyrics and musical composition. It’s a legal extension of the traditional model in which songwriters and composers collaborate—except now, one of the “creators” is a neural network.

Conclusion: Regulation Isn’t Avoidable—It’s Shapeable

The current situation is not an endpoint, but a starting point. The relationship between AI and the music industry is still evolving, and organizations like Artisjus will play a crucial role in shaping how this coexistence unfolds. One thing is certain: music does not lose its value just because it wasn’t written by a human—but the rights and responsibilities attached to it must be redefined.