AI Copyright Showdown Rattles Music Law and Long Island Venues

AI copyright fights test music and entertainment law: what counsel needs to know now

• Record labels sue over AI training on protected sound recordings
• U.S. Copyright Office rejects copyright for works created purely by AI
• Venues weigh PRO licenses against AI-generated compositions
• Leagues keep tight control of clips as creators seek fair-use space

Artificial intelligence is no longer a side issue in entertainment law. With billions in revenue and wages tied to music and live performance in New York pre-pandemic, the incentive to test boundaries is strong-and the disputes are arriving fast.

Authorship and copyrightability: the threshold issue

Seth Berman, partner at Abrams Fensterman, says the front line is authorship. The U.S. Copyright Office has stated that works created purely by AI-even with human prompts-do not meet the originality requirement. Human creative contribution remains the gate.

For counsel, that means disclosure of AI use in registrations, and contract language that distinguishes human authorship from AI-assisted output. Guidance is evolving, but the current posture is clear: no human authorship, no copyright. See the agency's resource hub for updates: U.S. Copyright Office: AI.

Training data litigation: can models ingest protected works?

Recording companies have sued AI developer Uncharted Labs, alleging the firm trained models on protected sound recordings without permission. Their argument: even if final outputs don't copy, using copyrighted recordings to build a system that can generate new tracks crosses the line.

This goes to fair use and whether ingesting protected works to learn "styles" is transformative or exploitative. Expect fights over the scope of training, dataset provenance, and whether model weights memorialize protectable expression.

Style prompts and substitution risk

As Berman notes, anyone can prompt a model for "a horn section that sounds like James Brown" or "lyrics in the style of Bob Dylan." The legal risk is substitution: users skip licensing and generate look-alike or sound-alike material that competes with the original market.

That invites copyright and contract claims, and-depending on jurisdiction-potential right-of-publicity and unfair competition theories. Counsel should track how courts assess "style mimicry" when the output is close enough to depress demand for licensed works.

Sports clips: control vs exposure

Dan Lust, counsel at Moritt, Hock & Hamroff, points out that leagues retain rights to game footage. They also see value in wider clip distribution to grow the audience. That tension-protect revenue streams while encouraging engagement-now runs through creator platforms using AI tools to edit, caption, and repackage highlights.

Expect stricter platform policies, automated enforcement, and negotiated carve-outs. Clients need clear permissions, especially for monetized content.

Venues and PROs: licenses still work, but AI raises new questions

Rich Pawelczyk of Horn Wright says ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC licenses remain workable; fees haven't been deal breakers for theaters and performance spaces. The business case for live shows is intact because audiences want a visceral experience.

AI complicates the mix. A venue could try AI-generated compositions to reduce licensing exposure, but that invites curation, quality, and community-impact questions. For operational clarity, venues are adding AI clauses to performance agreements and house policies. For PRO guidance, see ASCAP licensing resources.

Contract moves to make now

• Training restrictions: Prohibit vendors from using your catalog, recordings, stems, or audiovisual assets to train models without express written consent.
• Disclosure: Require representations about any AI involvement in creation, editing, mixing, or mastering; mandate prompt-specific logs if disputes arise.
• Authorship warranty: Parties warrant sufficient human authorship for copyrightability, with fallback licenses if registration is denied.
• Dataset provenance: For commissioned AI tools, require documented data sources, chain of title, and an indemnity for third-party claims.
• Style-of clauses: Limit use of "in the style of" prompts tied to your artists, voices, or catalog; address synthetic voice cloning explicitly.
• Venue riders: Define whether AI-generated music is permitted, how it is labeled in programs, and how performances are reported to PROs.
• Platform compliance: Track league and label policies on clips; align creator agreements with takedown risk and demonetization rules.

Risk management and litigation posture

• Audit: Identify where AI is used in your organization (creation, post-production, marketing) and map exposure to third-party rights.
• Monitor: Track pending federal cases on AI training and fair use; update playbooks as rulings land.
• Enforce: Use targeted notices against AI-generated sound-alikes or deepfakes that substitute for licensed works.
• Educate: Brief artists and staff on prompt practices that avoid plagiarism and "style-of" risks.

Communities from Huntington to Patchogue depend on venues for cultural life and local commerce. Outcomes in the training-data suits could ripple into ticketing, licensing costs, and programming choices.

What most stakeholders agree on: AI won't replace live performance, but it will change how content is created, licensed, and sold. As Berman put it, every wave of technology brings challenges and opportunities; the legal questions raised now will define how this industry works next.

If your legal team needs practical upskilling on AI concepts to evaluate vendor claims and draft stronger clauses, see these resources: AI courses by job.