As a layman interested in the law, I'm facing a bit of a conundrum posed by my cousin.
Here are the facts:
- A records company, M Ltd, has created (e.g. written code for, trained etc.) an AI that can generate music. The AI generates music when it is prompted. It can be prompted by either uttering a few random words into a microphone, or by verbally providing it with a cluster of notes (they could be random or have a deliberate structure).
- Person YT, an employee of M Ltd, wishes to try the AI out. He has consented to M Ltd's IP policy, which takes the position of the law on who holds the copyright to any copyrightable work created (i.e. the employer holds the copyright over the copyrightable work its employees create).
- Person YT utters a few random words and provides the AI with a random arrangement of notes.
- The AI generates a song.
I have two questions:
- With the fact pattern I have presented, can either the AI or M Ltd hold the copyright to the song the AI has generated?
- If Person YT only uttered random words, or only provided the AI with random notes, would it make a difference?
I am mostly indifferent as to jurisdiction. I only have a slight preference for either the EU, UK or US.
Thanks in advance.