New musical hits get AI spin, raising concerns around compensation, artist rights

Multiple versions of the recreation exist on YouTube, with some clocking up to 2 million views, raising concerns around monetary implications as this diverts legitimate streaming revenue, and the work of original artists and composers remains uncompensated.

Further, there is the issue of algorithmic abuse, where AI-generated tracks flood recommendation systems and crowd out legitimate content, and audio streaming platforms are left in a grey zone, unsure of how to attribute, moderate, or monetise such content fairly.

AI-generated renditions, like the recent version ofSaiyaara using Kishore Kumar’s voice, pose serious intellectual property challenges,said Essenese Obhan, managing partner at Obhan & Associates.They frequently rely on copyrighted music and recordings without proper permission, which can violate the rights of composers, lyricists, and music labels.

“More critically, cloning a singer’s voice—especially one as iconic and deceased as Kishore Kumar—enters into the domain of publicity rights and moral rights, both of which are increasingly recognized within Indian jurisprudence,” he added.

From an IP perspective, there’s a dual infringement risk: one, of using copyrighted material in training or output; and two, of misappropriating the distinctive identity of a performer’s voice, which can be argued to fall under personality rights or even trademark protection if the voice is commercially linked to the artist’s brand, Obhan added.

Revenue and reputation

A musical work created by AI, which is a way of exploitation of that right, could be legal—if creation of such derivative works is permitted by the owner of the work, said Aarushi Jain, partner (head – media, education and gaming), Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. AI versions may amount to unlawful acts sans permissions, resulting in legal action forinter aliainfringement of rights, deprivation of royalties and claims concerning personality rights. A claim for moral rights violation may also lie, especially if the artists believe that the AI version distorts the work and harms their reputation, Jain added.

Anupam Shukla, partner, Pioneer Legal, agreed there is a very real risk that AI-generated versions of songs could detract from the returns of the original. If a popular AI version of the original song becomes the go-to version on social media, it could divert streams and attention away from the original track, impacting royalties for the music label, the original lyricist, composer, and singer.

“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,” Gaurav Sahay, founding partner, Arthashastra Legal, pointed out. This can dilute the market value of the original recording, royalties 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,” he added.

Unauthorized use

A senior executive at a music label agreed that the threat from AI tracks is real and only adds to immediate business concerns. “Consumers in India are anyway barely paying for music content, plus we are competing with AI-generated versions of our own tracks for revenue,” the person added.

Industry experts point out that in recent times, there have been multiple instances of unauthorised use of an artist’s traits, attributes, likeness, deepfakes, and other forms of misrepresenting their association with a piece of work not made by them. For instance, last year, the Bombay High Court issued a ruling in favour of Arijit Singh’s personality rights and right of publicity against unauthorized generative AI content that used their voice, said Kalindhi Bhatia, partner, BTG Advaya. In the past as well, Indian courts have ruled personality rights to form a part of their right to privacy, a right to be let alone, and seek restriction of unlawful use of their name, image, likeness, and such. Globally as well, audio mining and voice cloning of prominent artists is gaining steam, Bhatia added.

“If content generated is freely available or acoustically more sound, it will have more streaming, leading to loss of revenue for the original works,” Savitha Kesav Jagadeesan, senior resident partner at Kochhar & Co., said. As such objections can be raised by a family whose voice has been converted posthumously, but India currently lacks statutory protection for posthumous personality rights, unlike jurisdictions such as California, which enforce publicity rights beyond death.

However, Indian estates may still object under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, which protects moral rights, including the integrity and reputation of the original work. It is noted that there is currently no framework in India to regulate consent, attribution, or ethical use of AI-generated music, Jagadeesan added.

Creative licence

To be sure, there are also advantages to the use of AI. From a purely creative perspective, AI does offer certain opportunities for innovation. It allows producers and composers to experiment with different vocal textures and reinterpretations of classic songs.

“However, the benefits of such creativity must be weighed against the legal and ethical obligation to respect the original artist’s rights and reputation,” said Germaine Pereira, partner at Solomon & Co. Unauthorized use of a singer’s voice especially one who is no longer alive can result in reputational harm and commercial unfairness, which must be carefully regulated, she said.

By 2028, music creators could lose up to 24% of their revenues if clear policies around AI-generated content are not implemented, according to a report by Cisac (International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers). “As technology reshapes the creative landscape, it is critical that innovation does not come at the cost of artistic integrity.

Through strategic collaborations and a robust rights management framework, we remain committed to ensuring that every creator is respected, rewarded, and ready for the future,” Rakesh Nigam, CEO of IPRS (Indian Performing Right Society), had said in a joint statement along with Cisac for the release of the report. IPRS is a copyright society that represents the authors, composers, and publishers of music.

“As music travels far and wide in the digital age…AI presents new threats. From educating creators about their rights to ensuring the ethical use of their work across platforms, our mission is far from over. As a body representing those behind the music, we at IPRS are committed to protecting the rights of every music creator, addressing systemic gaps, and building an ecosystem where creativity is respected, rewarded, and rightfully owned,” IPRS chairman and lyricist Javed Akhtar had said at the release of the report.