Artificial Intelligence (AI)‑generated music and playlists have become commonplace on various streaming platforms. An emerging issue is whether songs and playlists created or co-authored by AI qualify for copyright protection or as copyright‑protected "compilations" under Canadian law.
In this post we outline some of the key intellectual property considerations in Canada for organizations advising or working with artists, labels, content platforms and other stakeholders deploying AI tools for various content creation, with a focus on AI-generated music and curated playlists.
Copyright: Works and Compilations
Generally, the Copyright Act (the Act) provides that a copyright in relation to a work gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce, publish, or publicly perform a work or any substantial part of it. It also grants exclusive rights to create adaptations, translations, recordings, films or other derivative forms and to communicate or exhibit the work to the public.
Copyright may also subsist in a "compilation" of works even if the author of the compilation does not have copyright in each of individual components. The Act defines "compilation" to mean (a) a work resulting from the selection or arrangement of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works or of parts thereof, or (b) a work resulting from the selection or arrangement of data.
On compilations, the Supreme Court in CCH Canadian Ltd v Society of Upper Canada (CCH) noted in 2004 that "[i]t is not the several components that are the subject of the copyright, but the over-all arrangement of them which the plaintiff through his industry has produced".
For Works to be Copyrightable, the Author Must Exercise Skill and Judgement
The key element to securing copyright protection is originality. In CCH, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that for a work to be "original", it must reflect more than mere copying and involves the author’s own skill and judgment. Skill and judgement requires intellectual effort, using knowledge, discernment and decision‑making, rather than a purely mechanical exercise.
Regarding compilations, the Supreme Court determined in 2004 that a compilation's individual components may not have sufficient "originality" to attract copyright protection, however the arranger may have copyright in the form represented by the compilation. At the time the Supreme Court rendered its decision in CCH in 2004, "the author's own skill and judgement" was only conceptualized as human skill and judgement.
Flash forward to 2026 and the rapid development of AI capabilities, including generative capabilities and one wonders how the findings of CCH will playout in Canada today.
Copyright Implications for AI-Generated and Human-AI Co-Authored Playlists and Songs
When assessing whether playlists or songs attract copyright protection, the relevant inquiry is whether the creation of the playlist or song reflects sufficient originality to qualify as a protected work. This analysis is relatively straightforward where a human author curates a playlist or composes a song through creative choices. More complex questions arise, however, where playlists or songs are created by AI systems, or generated by humans using AI tools. Simply, where is the line between human contribution and AI tool?
Where a playlist or musical work is generated entirely by AI, without meaningful human involvement in selecting, arranging, composing or refining the output, it is unlikely that the originality threshold articulated in CCH would be met.
By contrast, playlists or songs created through a combination of human and AI inputs may attract copyright protection where the human contributor exercises creative judgment over the AI's use and output. Human decisions relating to inputting prompts, selection of tracks or musical elements, sequencing, editing, refinement or rejection of AI‑generated content may support a finding of originality. In these circumstances, copyright may subsist in the human contributions to the work, even if the AI plays a role in generating underlying material.
AI Authorship Before the Courts
Questions about whether copyright protection requires human authorship are now before the Federal Court of Canada in CIPPIC v Attorney General of Canada (T‑1717‑24) (CIPPIC).
In this case, CIPPIC sought to expunge or amend a copyright registration to remove AI as an author. The proceeding challenges the human‑centered assumptions that underpin Canada's copyright framework, including the Supreme Court of Canada’s articulation in CCH that originality requires the author’s exercise of "skill and judgment".
Although the matter has yet to be set down for a hearing, the case underscores growing pressure on Canada's copyright framework to grapple with AI‑assisted creation.
Ownership of Human and AI-generated Co-Authored Playlists and Songs
Absent clear evidence of human involvement, asserting copyright in AI‑co-created playlists or music may be difficult. As AI tools become increasingly integrated into music creation and curation, organizations and creators should carefully consider how human decision‑making is embedded in the creative process, and how those contributions are documented, when seeking to rely on copyright protection in Canada.
If copyright does subsist in an AI-generated playlist or song, ownership will depend on human involvement and contractual terms. Many AI tools contain terms of use addressing ownership, usage rights, and restrictions. These vary widely as some platforms may assign all rights in outputs to the user; others provide only a license, not ownership; some reserve rights to re-use user inputs; and others prohibit commercial use of AI-outputs. Such terms may impact the user's ability to claim copyright, or negate the value of any such claim through mandatory public licensing.
Moral Rights Considerations
Authors in Canada retain moral rights over their works, including rights of attribution and integrity. In the context of co-authored AI‑generated music and AI‑curated playlists, moral rights may arise where a human exercises creative judgment over inputting prompts, selection, sequencing or refinement of the playlists or songs. Subsequent modification, remixing or commercial deployment of AI‑generated songs or playlists could engage moral rights if such uses prejudice the honour or reputation of the human contributor and no waiver of moral rights was obtained.
Best Practices for Co-Authored AI-Generated Music or Playlists
To reduce legal uncertainty, businesses should consider:
- Documenting Human Creative Input: Record human decisions relating to track selection, sequencing, prompts, edits, and refinements to support originality based on skill and judgment.
- Use AI Tools with Clear Terms of Use: Choose platforms that explicitly assign rights to users, i.e., those generating the content, and allow commercial use.
- Clarifying ownership and licensing: Ensure contracts address ownership and permitted uses where music or playlists are developed through a combination of human and AI processes.
- Managing Moral Rights: Consider attribution and integrity issues where human creative judgment contributes to AI‑assisted music or playlist curation and seek moral rights waivers where appropriate.
- Seek Legal Advice: Experienced counsel can provide tailored legal advice with respect to the particular co-authored AI work at issue.
Conclusion
AI‑driven creation and curation present significant opportunities for artists, platforms, and content intermediaries, but Canada's copyright framework remains anchored in concepts of human authorship and originality. Until courts or legislators provide clearer guidance on the status of AI‑generated and AI‑curated works, organizations should proceed on the assumption that demonstrable human involvement, clear contractual rights, and robust internal documentation remain central to managing legal uncertainty in this evolving landscape.
Bennett Jones