{"id":108442,"date":"2026-07-29T09:27:20","date_gmt":"2026-07-29T08:27:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/routenote.com\/blog\/?p=108442"},"modified":"2026-07-29T09:27:22","modified_gmt":"2026-07-29T08:27:22","slug":"canada-ai-copyright-music-publishers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/routenote.com\/blog\/canada-ai-copyright-music-publishers\/","title":{"rendered":"Canadian music publishers argue only humans should qualify as copyright authors in AI case"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Music Publishers Canada has entered a landmark Canadian AI copyright case, arguing that only humans should qualify as authors under copyright law. While no legal ruling has been made, the organisation’s intervention could help shape how AI-assisted music is treated in the future.<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The debate over AI and copyright has taken another step forward, this time in Canada.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Music Publishers Canada (MPC) has formally intervened<\/a> in a landmark Federal Court case concerning AI-generated artwork, arguing that only humans should be recognised as authors for copyright purposes. While the case centres on a visual artwork rather than music, its outcome could have significant implications for musicians, songwriters and publishers using generative AI tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Importantly, this isn’t a court decision or a change in Canadian law. Instead, it’s Music Publishers Canada’s view on how copyright should apply as the courts begin to tackle questions surrounding AI-assisted creativity. According to the organisation, the case could help establish an important framework for future music copyright disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why is Music Publishers Canada getting involved?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The case revolves around an AI-assisted artwork called SURYAST, created by Ankit Sahni using an AI tool called RAGHAV.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2021, Canada’s Intellectual Property Office granted copyright registration for the image, listing both Sahni and the AI system as co-authors. That registration has since been challenged by the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), which argues that AI cannot legally be recognised as an author and questions whether the work meets Canada’s originality requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the dispute concerns visual art, Music Publishers Canada says the court’s reasoning could extend well beyond images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The organisation believes the ruling is likely to influence how Canadian law determines whether music created with the assistance of generative AI qualifies for copyright protection, and if it does, who should be recognised as its author.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Music Publishers Canada’s position<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In its submission to the Federal Court, Music Publishers Canada argues that only a human can be an author for copyright purposes. However, the organisation isn’t suggesting that works created with AI should automatically lose copyright protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, it draws an important distinction between AI-generated works and AI-assisted works.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Music Publishers Canada, copyright may still apply where a human has exercised meaningful creative skill and judgement while using AI as a tool. What it opposes is recognising the AI system itself as a legal author.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The organisation is also encouraging the court to avoid a blanket rule for every AI-created work. Instead, it recommends a flexible, case-by-case approach that examines how much creative contribution came from the human creator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why this matters for musicians<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

While this particular case isn’t about music, it raises questions that many artists are already asking. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you use AI to help write lyrics, generate ideas, create melodies or assist with production, who actually owns the finished work? And how much human creativity is needed before copyright applies? Those questions don’t yet have universal answers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Across much of the world, copyright authorities have generally taken the view that fully AI-generated works are unlikely to qualify for copyright protection, while works that involve meaningful human creative input are more likely to receive protection. Exactly where that line sits, however, remains one of the biggest unresolved issues facing copyright law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For independent artists experimenting with AI, that means keeping creative control firmly in your own hands remains the safest approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part of a wider global conversation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Canada isn’t tackling these questions in isolation. Similar debates are taking place in the US, across Europe and the UK as governments, courts and creative industries attempt to balance technological innovation with creators’ rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
AI-generated works can’t be copyrighted in US as Supreme Court refuses to weigh in<\/a><\/blockquote>