With AI now capable of recreating the voices of legendary artists, even those long gone, the music industry faces a defining moment. In an interview with Tech Achieve Media, Gaurav Sahay, Founding Partner at Arthashastra Legal, highlights the legal, ethical, and commercial complexities of AI generated music. From posthumous publicity rights and copyright claims to revenue dilution and transformative creative opportunities, Sahay outlines why the industry urgently needs AI-specific regulations to balance innovation with respect for artists’ legacies.
TAM: Have we seen other notable cases of songs recreated using AI voices in India or globally? What legal and monetary issues do these raise for artists, labels, and platforms?
Gaurav Sahay: Internationally, the music industry is actively lobbying for AI-specific guardrails, including consent-based voice cloning frameworks and compensation mechanisms for artists.
AI-generated songs recreating voices of iconic, deceased, artists raise complex implications that requires expeditious addressal. AI-generated renditions mimicking the voices of singers have blurred demarcations between tribute, innovation, and exploitation. The key issues revolve around copyright, moral rights, and the right of publicity. The voice of an artist, especially deceased, is generally covered under personality rights or posthumous publicity rights. The unauthorized use of a deceased artist’s voice, through AI, may amount to infringement of their estate’s publicity rights. In the absence of comprehensive AI-specific legislation, stakeholders must rely on existing IP laws, personality rights jurisprudence, and contractual enforcement mechanisms.
TAM: Could these AI generated renditions undermine the revenues of the original song? Can there also be objections from the artist whose voice is replicated, or from their estate if they are deceased?
Gaurav Sahay: From a commercial standpoint, AI versions circulate widely on digital platforms without appropriate licensing or revenue guardrails, potentially diverting revenue away from the original song. This can dilute the market value of the original recording, royalty to music labels, lyricists, composers, and performers.
The voice of an artist is considered a unique and protectable aspect of their persona, and its commercial exploitation without consent can amount to misappropriation and an invasion of privacy or personality rights. If the artist is not alive, their legal heirs or estate may assert posthumous publicity rights, seeking injunctions or damages against such unauthorized usage. Therefore, the original creators and the heirs of the mimicked voice may also have enforceable legal claims against platforms hosting such content.
TAM: From a creative perspective, can AI generated music add any value to the industry?
Gaurav Sahay: If brought in use with responsibility, the use of AI to generate songs in the voices of iconic artists offer significant creative benefits. The AI generated works could fall within the ambit of “transformative use,” that add expression, meaning, or value to the original. These AI recreations can unlock new forms of cultural engagement, reimagine classics for newer audiences, and even revive public interest in legacy artists whose influence might otherwise fade. When used ethically and within a legal framework, it can enhance creativity, innovation and contribute to the preservation of artistic legacies.
TAM: What legal tools exist or may soon emerge to regulate AI generated music and songs?
Gaurav Sahay: An unauthorized AI renditions that mimic original compositions or voice could be treated as infringing derivative works, particularly where no license has been obtained from the rights holders. The moral rights grants the right to object to any distortion, mutilation, or modification of their work that is prejudicial to their honor or reputation. Importantly, the “right of publicity” or “personality rights” have been recognized. The estates of deceased artists therefore seek injunctive relief and damages for misappropriation or passing off. Streaming platforms and content-sharing sites may also be held liable if they fail to act upon takedown requests or continue to host infringing AI-generated content. The remedies are reactive and fragmented. There is a need for AI-specific regulation. Such a regulatory framework would not only deter misuse but also promote ethical innovation with transparency, accountability, and respect for the rights of original creators and performers.
