In just six weeks from June to July 2025, The Velvet Sundown released three albums of thirteen songs each. Virtually overnight, the songs racked up millions of streams. The trick? The “band” and its images, lyrics, and songs were all output by generative artificial intelligence (AI). From the characteristic yellow tint of the Dall-E-generated images, made-to-match with the vintage aesthetic, to the neo-kitsch ChatGPT-generated lyrics reminiscent of hippie age protest songs, and the SUNO-generated sonic artefacts masked by a rather bland and saturated ‘70s soundscape, it all looks coherent and skillfully done.
The Velvet Sundown is a good example to illustrate the many copyright-related issues with which SUISA is increasingly confronted in the era of generative AI.
Are the Velvet Sundown’s songs protected by copyright?
The Federal Copyright Act defines protected works as literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character. Accordingly, to qualify for protection a work must be an expression of thought and an act of human will. It follows that the author can only be a natural person, i.e. a human being. Consequently, pure AI output, like the Velvet Sundown’s songs, does not enjoy copyright protection and is in the public domain. Put simply, the decisive factor is whether a composition is a human creation or the output of an algorithm.
A work cannot be protected by copyright if it is simply the result of a prompt – i.e. a short input instructing an AI model to generate content on the prompted basis. Especially if two identical prompts produce two completely different melodies – a clear indication that the melody was not created by humans but output by generative AI.
Copyrightability is more difficult to assess in cases where the human-made part of a song – as opposed to that generated by an algorithim – is large enough on the one hand, and is expressed in the generated output on the other. In some cases, a work may still be copyrightable even though it was produced with the help of AI. That applies, for example, if the music for a song is AI-generated while the lyrics are written by a human (or vice versa). Such hybrids are protected works if, standing alone, the part of the work created by a human being satisfies copyright protection requirements.
Could these songs be registered with SUISA?
There are two requirements enabling SUISA to charge a licence fee for the use of a musical work: the musical work must be protected by copyright, and the rights of use in that work must have been transferred to SUISA. By registering a work with SUISA, the necessary rights for licensing music usage are transferred to the latter. Music generated by AI poses a special challenge in terms of copyright protection.
Meanwhile, there are tools on the market purporting to be able to distinguish between songs generated by artificial intelligence and conventional music. Analysing the songs on the third Velvet Sundown album with such a tool (called an AI detector) it appears with a 98% probability that all thirteen tracks were generated by Suno, a popular music AI. The problem is that the analysis focuses on the production rather than the composition. We cannot simply assume that, in addition to the production, the lyrics or composition were also generated by Suno.
Because of the uncertain evidence, SUISA cannot determine with certainty whether a given work is protected by copyright. However, it contractually ensures that it does not licence music in the public domain: by signing SUISA’s General Terms and Conditions for Rights Administration, authors undertake not to register with SUISA any songs that were entirely generated by artificial intelligence.
To the extent the Velvet Sundown’s songs are neither works composed by a human nor hybrid works (see above), but purely AI-generated output, they cannot be registered with SUISA. As far as we can tell, no registration applications have been received by SUISA or any of its sister societies for these songs.
For more information about the registration of works produced with the help of AI, see the relevant FAQs on SUISA’s website.
Is it permitted to upload to Spotify etc. songs that are entirely generated by AI?
In principle, AI songs that are neither copyrighted nor registered with a collective management organisation can be uploaded to streaming services. Depending on the aggregator – in the case of the Velvet Sundown, this is DistroKid – the uploading of music generated entirely by AI may be tolerated or prohibited (e.g. iMusician). DistroKid references the AI provider’s general terms and conditions. And Suno’s Terms of Service stipulate that only users who have purchased a subscription may make commercial use of the songs. However, Suno reserves the right to use any output generated by users, including for commercial use by third parties. Moreover, Suno reserves the right to use any prompts, lyrics or audio files uploaded by users for its own purposes – not only for further training of its model but also to pass on to third parties.
Are AI generated songs labelled as such?
Conversely to Spotify or Tidal, Deezer, the French streaming service, indicates when a song is likely to have been output by AI; this indication appears on all three of the Velvet Sundown albums. According to Deezer, some 30 000 AI-generated songs are uploaded to the platform every day, accounting for a 28% share (status: September 2025). The AI notice informs listeners that AI music is on the platform; moreover, such songs no longer appear in Deezer’s editorial and automated recommendations. This is designed to reduce the visibility and reach of AI music, thereby generating less revenue for it. However, because Deezer cannot distinguish between composition and production, notices of this kind could also result in human works being declared ‘AI-generated content’ when implemented by an AI tool such as Suno.
Could the songs infringe third-party copyrights?
If an AI-generated song falls within the scope of protection of an existing song, this could constitute a copyright infringement. For this to be the case, the AI song would either have to be identical to a protected work, or the individual character of the original would have to be recognisable in the AI-generated song. Gema, SUISA’s German sister organisation, has managed to demonstrate that Suno is not only capable of generating new material, it can also plagiarise.
Plagiarism is not to be confused with mere imitations of stylistic elements by generative AI. For music, this means that composition techniques and styles can be imitated as long as no specific parts of a work are plagiarised. Chord progressions, i.e. the combination and temporal sequence of chords, are not protectable either.
Is it fair to use AI music?
For a music model like Suno to generate songs, it must first have been trained with large volumes of human-made songs; so far, this has been largely done without permission from the rightholders. There is considerable legal uncertainty surrounding the use of copyrighted works as training input for AI systems – the legal situation needs to be clarified in this regard.
A study conducted by CISAC, the international umbrella federation of collective management organisations, anticipates that, under the existing regulatory framework, AI-generated content will have a huge financial impact on the creative industry. While music creators’ revenues are expected to drop by over 20%, AI providers’ revenues increase by millions each year.
Notwithstanding, generative AI tools like Suno and Udio operate without permission from composers, lyricists, arrangers, performers, publishers, labels, etc., without disclosing their training data, and without paying any licence fees. Therefore, a fair legal framework for cultural creation is urgently required.
The current regulatory framework also spawns uncertainties regarding the use of AI-generated content outside the private sphere, ranging from possible copyright infringements in the form of plagiarism to violations of the (possibly diverging) contractual terms and conditions of AI providers, streaming platforms and aggregators.
This is still quite confusing … for example: If I have a song (work) already registered with SUISA but decide to use (e.g.) SUNO to re-arrange the song, keeping the chord structure and melody … is SUNO infringing on the copyright of my song, even though it is I who had instructed SUNO to create a “new” arrangement ? I had to upload the original registered song for SUNO to work on. Am I infringing on any copyrights ?
Comments welcome, thank you.
If you are using your “own” song (meaning you are the original author and/or are the current rights holder of that song) and use an ai-tool like SUNO to create a new arrangement, SUNO carries out copyright-related activities (reproduction, etc.) in order to create the new arrangement. If you are a member of SUISA, you are bound by the representation agreement (Wahrnehmungsvertrag) and can only grant licenses on your own authority within this framework (e.g. for non-commercial use, see section 3.8 of the representation agreement). If SUNO also reserves the right to use the new arrangement commercially itself or through third parties (as mentioned in the above article), SUNO would actually have to obtain a license from SUISA. Without a license, it would be violating copyright laws.
I hope this clarifies your question. In any case, it is always important to look at each individual case. It is not possible to make a reliable statement about the legal situation in general terms.
Thank you very much for your reply. I would like to add the following: Through the “Rights Administration Agreement” (Wahrnehmungsvertrag), the author mandates SUISA to manage the rights to his or her musical works. However, the clause you refer to is found in the “General Terms and Conditions for Rights Administration” (Wahrnehmungsbedingungen), which specify the details of the agreement and form an integral part of the “Rights Administration Agreement”.
It is true that the “Rights Administration Agreement” transfers the reproduction rights from the author to SUISA. Suno would therefore have to acquire a licence. Due to the current legal uncertainty surrounding AI use, particularly as a result of territorial issues, we have not yet been able to conclude any licence agreements with AI providers. We hope that a solution will be found within the framework of the motion put forward by Member of the Council of States Petra Gössi so that such uses can, in fact, be licensed.
It is also important to distinguish whether Suno is producing a cover version or a derivative work. In a cover version, the composition (music and lyrics) remains unchanged; only the interpretation, e.g. instrumentation or style, differs. In a derivative work, however, elements of the original are modified or combined with new individual elements.
An AI-generated cover version of a protectable work constitutes a normal interpretation from a copyright perspective. Any exploitation is subject to remuneration, and the remuneration is payable to the rights holders of the work. If AI is used to add additional compositional elements, a derivative work may be created, for which the consent of the author of the original work is required.
Ich möchte eine grundsätzliche Frage zur Nutzung von KI bei Musikproduktionen klären. Nach meinem aktuellen Verständnis ist es bei Plattformen wie Suno so, dass ein Werk kommerziell genutzt werden darf, wenn es während eines aktiven Premium Abos erstellt wurde. Auch wenn das Abo später nicht mehr aktiv ist, bleiben die Veröffentlichungsrechte für diesen Song bestehen. Suno hat die AGBs updated (Januar 2026).
Unklar ist für mich jedoch die urheberrechtliche Einordnung, wenn ein Werk weiterbearbeitet wird. Zum Beispiel wenn ich einen mit KI generierten Song nehme, den Gesang entferne, Instrumente ersetze, Melodien neu einspiele oder das Arrangement in einer DAW wie Logic Pro weiterentwickle. Ebenso wenn ich ein Acapella technisch bearbeite, weil kein Sänger verfügbar ist. In solchen Fällen entsteht eine Mischung aus KI generiertem Material und eigener kreativer Leistung. Es stellt sich die Frage, wie dieser kreative Anteil bewertet wird. Ähnlich ist es bei Songwritern, die Texte verfassen, ohne selbst eine Produktion zu erstellen. Auch dort liegt ein klarer kreativer Beitrag vor falls sie Suno nutzen. Entscheidend scheint mir weniger der prozentuale Anteil von KI, sondern wer die schöpferische Leistung erbringt und wer die Nutzungsrechte besitzt. Ich bitte um eine Einschätzung, wie solche Produktionen im Rahmen der SUISA Richtlinien behandelt werden. Freundliche Grüsse Paulo
Vielen Dank für Ihre Frage. Durch den Abschluss eines Pro- oder Premier-Abos räumt Suno der Nutzerin bzw. dem Nutzer das Recht ein, die generierten Aufnahmen kommerziell zu verwerten, z. B. durch den Upload bei einem Streaming-Anbieter oder die Lizenzierung für einen Film.
Davon zu unterscheiden ist die Frage, ob Urheberrechte entstehen; diese Thematik wird im oben stehenden Artikel behandelt. Entsteht ein Song einzig aufgrund eines Prompts, wird dadurch kein urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk geschaffen, da es sowohl an den Schutzvoraussetzungen (geistige Schöpfung mit individuellem Charakter) als auch an einem menschlichen Schöpfer fehlt. Für die nachfolgende Weiterbearbeitung kann auf das bereits Beschriebene verwiesen werden: Ist der menschliche Schaffensanteil ausreichend hoch, kann ein urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk entstehen, auch wenn der ursprüngliche Song gemeinfrei war. Entscheidend ist dabei stets, ob Komposition oder Text vom Menschen stammen; durch rein produktionstechnische Änderungen (Gesang entfernen, bestehende Melodien mit anderen Instrumenten einspielen, Mixing, Mastering etc.) entsteht kein Urheberrecht. Wenn jedoch – wie Sie beschreiben – eigens komponierte Komponenten hinzugefügt werden (z. B. Melodien neu eingespielt oder das Arrangement in einer DAW wie Logic Pro weiterentwickelt wird), kann ein neues, geschütztes Werk entstehen.
Bereits vor dem Zeitalter der KI stellten sich Abgrenzungsfragen zwischen Kreation und Produktion; diese werden jedoch durch die nahezu unbegrenzten Bearbeitungsmöglichkeiten der KI erheblich verstärkt. Die zentrale Frage ist daher, ob Sie selbst eine schöpferische Leistung, typischerweise in Form von Komposition oder Text, erbringen. Ob dies jeweils der Fall ist, muss in jedem Einzelfall neu beurteilt werden.
Freundliche Grüsse
Benjamin Gut, SUISA
Bonjour à tous, et merci à la SUISA d’ouvrir cet espace de dialogue.
J’ai composé une chanson (instrumentale) avec Ableton et j’ai utilisé le détecteur AI Music Checker. Celui-ci m’indique que la composition est humaine. Ensuite, j’ai utilisé SUNO pour un meilleur rendu sonore. J’ai repassé la chanson au détecteur, et cette fois-ci, l’analyse indique que la chanson a été générée par une IA. Pourtant, c’est ma composition. Comment interpréter cela ? Est-ce une erreur du détecteur ? SUNO introduit-il une trame reconnaissable ?
Puis-je la déposer ? comment prouver que c’est ma composition ..
Cordialement,
Cesare
Merci beaucoup pour votre question. Vous avez rencontré un problème qui nous préoccupe depuis longtemps en tant que société de gestion collective des droits d’auteur : le détecteur que vous mentionnez reconnaît les chansons générées par l’IA principalement grâce à ce qu’on appelle des artefacts présents dans le signal audio. Grâce à une analyse spectrale, le détecteur peut déterminer si un enregistrement a été généré par une application d’IA et peut même identifier l’application dont il provient, car le spectre de fréquences varie selon le modèle. Le détecteur analyse donc l’enregistrement, mais il ne peut pas (encore) déterminer si l’œuvre sous-jacente (composition et paroles) a été créée par un être humain ou par une machine.
Ce problème est également la raison pour laquelle nous ne pouvons pas effectuer de contrôles IA à grande échelle : dans le cas d’une création humaine produite à l’aide de l’IA, comme dans votre cas, le détecteur se déclencherait, ce qui pourrait entraîner à tort le rejet de l’œuvre. À l’inverse, Suno permettrait de composer des chansons non protégées par le droit d’auteur, puis de les réenregistrer sans que nous remarquions qu’elles ne peuvent pas être protégées, puisque le détecteur ne signalerait rien.
Lorsque vous enregistrez votre œuvre auprès de la SUISA, vous nous transférez uniquement les droits d’auteur, c’est-à-dire les droits sur la composition et les paroles. En vous enregistrant auprès de la SUISA, vous confirmez que l’œuvre est de votre création. Aucune déclaration supplémentaire n’est requise et il n’est pas obligatoire de télécharger un enregistrement.
À notre connaissance, Suno n’intègre pas de tatouage numérique (« watermark ») dans le signal audio. Toutefois, vous devez faire preuve de prudence lorsque vous téléchargez un tel enregistrement généré par l’IA, car certains agrégateurs ou plateformes (par exemple Deezer) n’acceptent pas ces chansons ou les désignent comme générées par l’IA et ne les incluent pas dans leurs playlists.
Cordialement,
Benjamin Gut, SUISA
Ich könnte doch eine KI-generierte Komposition einfach als meine eigene einreichen, würde ja keiner merken…
Durch die Werkanmeldung bestätigt die Urheberin bzw. der Urheber gemäss Ziff. 6.2 der Allgemeinen Wahrnehmungsbedingungen, keine rein durch künstliche Intelligenz generierten Musikstücke anzumelden. Da rein KI-generierte Songs – wie im Artikel erläutert – keine Werke im urheberrechtlichen Sinn darstellen, ist eine entsprechende Anmeldung ausgeschlossen.
Sollten dennoch solche Kompositionen angemeldet werden, kann dies vertragsrechtliche Konsequenzen haben. Bestehen konkrete Anhaltspunkte, nimmt die SUISA entsprechende Abklärungen vor und koordiniert sich gegebenenfalls mit Schwestergesellschaften im Ausland.
@Marian G. Weber …
>> If SUNO also reserves the right to use the new arrangement commercially itself or through third parties (as mentioned in the above article), SUNO would actually have to obtain a license from SUISA. Without a license, it would be violating copyright laws. <<
Thank you for your answer, appreciated. This is exactly what I think, that SUNO would need to obtain a license from SUISA and my issue is that SUNO probably never asks for a license outside its own "universe". When uploading a song, SUNO only asks whether I'm the rightful owner.