Can you use AI to make music?

You can use AI to make music, as long as you go carefully. Ownership is murky, copying real artists is a bad idea, and every streaming platform has its own rules about what it will accept.

Start with ownership, because that is where it gets strange. UK law (the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or CDPA) has a specific rule for computer-generated work. Section 9(3) says the author of a computer-generated musical work is the person who made the arrangements necessary for its creation, where there is no human author. Under section 12(7), that kind of copyright lasts 50 years from the end of the year the work was made.

Sounds tidy. It isn’t. The government’s Report on Copyright and AI (18 March 2026) says section 9(3) contains an apparent legal contradiction, and that without case law it is unclear how it applies. The government proposes removing the specific protection for wholly computer-generated works while keeping protection for AI-assisted works. That is a proposal, and the law has not changed.

There is a wrinkle. The report notes that AI-generated music and video could carry on being protected as sound recordings and films, because sound recordings are protected regardless of human creativity, a bit like a recording of birdsong. So even if the “computer-generated” route disappears, a finished track might still have some protection as a recording. Might. Nobody should bet the house on it.

The practical takeaway: the more of you there is in the track, the stronger your position looks, since the government’s direction of travel is to keep protecting AI-assisted work.

How to do it well

Treat AI as one tool in the process rather than the whole process. Use it for parts, such as ideas, a backing track or a bit of mastering help, then add your own writing and your own performance.

Read the generator’s terms before you release anything. They say who owns what comes out and whether you can use it commercially, and the answers differ between services. Finding out after your track is on a platform is a miserable way to learn.

Never prompt for a real artist’s voice. Steer clear of copying lyrics or melodies too.

When you distribute, disclose your AI use honestly and check each platform’s rules before you upload, because they do not agree with each other. And do not mass-upload: mass uploads and duplicates are exactly what Spotify’s new spam filter is aimed at.

Rules and risks

Copyright and infringement. Section 16 of the CDPA says copying a substantial part of a work without a licence infringes copyright. The government’s report adds that if a user specifically asks an AI service to reproduce an artist’s work and it does, each of them may be liable. You cannot shrug and say the software did it.

Voice impersonation. UK law has no general personal image right. What exists instead is a patchwork: data protection, online safety, criminal offences, defamation, trade marks and passing off. The best-known example is the “fake Drake” track Heart On My Sleeve from April 2023. It mimicked Drake and The Weeknd with AI vocals, got over 9 million views and streams, and was then taken down.

Platform rules. This is where most people will actually get caught out.

Spotify (25 September 2025) only allows vocal impersonation when the impersonated artist has authorised it. It is rolling out a music spam filter aimed at mass uploads, duplicates and similar tactics, and it supports an industry standard, DDEX, for AI disclosures in credits. It says disclosing AI use is not about down-ranking tracks.

Deezer (21 July 2026) tags fully AI-generated tracks and excludes them from algorithmic recommendations. It will take down AI tracks used for streaming fraud, and ones that have not been streamed for six months or more. AI tracks passed 50% of daily new uploads at peak in June 2026, which explains the tightening.

Bandcamp is the strictest. Its policy (13 January 2026, “Keeping Bandcamp Human”) does not permit music and audio generated wholly or in substantial part by AI. Using AI to impersonate other artists or styles is prohibited, and it may remove music on suspicion of being AI-generated. Suspicion, note, not proof.

YouTube requires creators to disclose realistic AI content and lists AI-generated music among the examples that need disclosing. Its monetisation policy on inauthentic content (renamed on 15 July 2025) excludes AI content made with generic templates that looks mass-produced without the creator’s own insight. So even if the video stays up, the money might not come with it.

Put together, the pattern is fairly consistent: most platforms accept AI as a tool, are wary of AI as a factory, and are hostile to AI as a forger.

This is general information, not legal advice.