Why Canadian Music Publishers Are Fighting to Block AI Software Authorship

MPC Intervenes in Landmark Federal Case

Music Publishers Canada (MPC) has formally intervened in a legal battle before the Federal Court of Canada to address whether AI-generated works qualify for copyright protection and whether an AI system can legally be designated as an author.

Although the case centers on a visual artwork titled Suryast, MPC notes that the court’s decision will likely have a significant impact on how Canadian law determines whether musical works created with generative AI tools are eligible for copyright protection.

The Dispute Behind Suryast

The test case involves an artwork created by Ankit Sahni, who used an AI tool named RAGHAV to rework a sunset photograph in the style of Vincent Van Gogh’s The Starry Night. Sahni sought copyright registration in multiple jurisdictions:

United States: The US Copyright Office rejected registration for Suryast, concluding that only humans can be authors and that Sahni’s text prompts were insufficient to establish human creativity. US courts upheld similar standards in other AI cases, such as A Recent Entrance To Paradise, which the US Supreme Court declined to review earlier this year.
Canada: The Canadian Intellectual Property Office initially registered a copyright for Suryast in 2021, listing both Sahni and the AI tool RAGHAV as co-authors.

The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic challenged the registration in court, arguing that Suryast fails to meet Canadian originality requirements and that software cannot legally be listed as an author.

Human Authorship vs. AI Tools

After receiving permission to intervene last month, MPC submitted that Canadian copyright policy should align with international treaties and standards adopted in other jurisdictions, including the US.

Regarding legal authorship and AI-assisted works, MPC stated:

“Only a human can be an author for copyright purposes… while there may be circumstances where copyright protection is afforded to a work created by a human with the help of AI tools, the AI tool itself should not be recognised as a legal ‘author’.”

MPC advocated for a case-by-case evaluation assessing the specific degree of human skill and judgment contributed to an AI-assisted work, rather than a rigid “one-size-fits-all” standard.