Copyright In AI-Expanded Drum Symphonies From Ancient Rituals.
Copyright in AI-Expanded Drum Symphonies from Ancient Rituals
AI-generated expansions or reinterpretations of ancient ritual drum symphonies (e.g., indigenous ceremonies, traditional percussion ensembles) involve complex copyright questions because these works combine cultural heritage, musical performance, and AI creativity. The key legal issues are:
Authorship – Who created the work: AI, human, or community?
Originality – Are ritual rhythms sufficiently original?
Derivative Work – Does AI expansion infringe existing recordings?
Cultural and Moral Rights – Some jurisdictions protect traditional knowledge.
Here is a detailed analysis with case law from multiple jurisdictions.
I. Foundational Principles: Copyright Protects Expression, Not Facts or Cultural Traditions
Traditional or ancient drum patterns themselves are generally not copyrightable, as they are considered cultural heritage or folklore.
📘 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
Key Holding
Facts, methods, or systems are not protected; only original expression qualifies for copyright.
Application
Ancient ritual rhythms exist as historical facts or cultural traditions. AI cannot claim copyright over these per se. Protection applies only to creative expansions, arrangements, or stylized interpretations.
II. Human Authorship Requirement in the United States
📘 Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
Holding
Human authorship is required for copyright. A photograph reflecting creative choices can be copyrighted.
Application
For AI-expanded drum symphonies:
If a composer programs AI with stylistic decisions, selects arrangements, and edits the output, the human may qualify as the author.
Pure AI output with minimal human input is unlikely to receive copyright protection in the U.S.
📘 Naruto v. Slater
Holding
Non-human entities (here, a monkey) cannot hold copyright.
Application
AI cannot own copyright for drum symphonies it generates autonomously. Human creative contribution is essential.
📘 Thaler v. Perlmutter
Holding
AI-generated artwork without a human author cannot be registered.
Relevance
AI expansions of ancient drum symphonies will only be copyrightable if a human:
Selects or sequences rhythms,
Adds harmonic or melodic variations,
Shapes the overall composition.
III. Originality and Derivative Work
📘 Baker v. Selden
Holding
Copyright protects expression, not underlying methods or systems.
Application
The drum pattern of an ancient ritual is like a method or system.
AI expansions that add original arrangements, harmonies, or instrumentation can be protected.
Simply reproducing the original ritual rhythm may not be protected.
📘 Rogers v. Koons
Holding
Substantial copying of protected works, even with transformation, can infringe.
Application
If AI expansions closely imitate a copyrighted recording of a drum symphony, they could constitute infringement.
Original reinterpretations with creative variation are safer.
IV. United Kingdom Perspective: Computer-Generated Works
📘 Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd
Holding
For computer-generated works, the author is the person who makes the arrangements necessary for creation.
Application
In the UK:
A human arranging AI parameters for drum symphonies may be deemed the author.
Even if AI autonomously creates the final rhythm or orchestration, UK law recognizes the human director of the process.
V. European Union Standard: Intellectual Creation
📘 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening
Holding
Copyright requires the author’s “own intellectual creation.”
Application
Human input in expanding drum symphonies (e.g., tempo, layering, instrumentation) is crucial.
AI alone is insufficient for protection under EU law.
📘 Painer v Standard Verlags GmbH
Holding
Creative freedom in aesthetic choices establishes originality.
Application
Adding harmonization, stylistic flourishes, or structural rearrangements can establish copyright.
Purely mechanical AI generation lacks this originality.
VI. Indian Perspective: Modicum of Creativity
📘 Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak
Holding
Originality requires minimal creativity; mere labor is insufficient.
Application
AI-expanded drum symphonies in India require human editorial or creative input.
Human decisions on rhythm patterns, orchestration, or AI prompt design can establish copyright.
Pure AI output may not be protected.
VII. Cultural and Moral Rights
Many jurisdictions recognize the community or cultural interest in traditional knowledge.
Unauthorized commercialization of AI-expanded ritual music may raise ethical or cultural claims, even if copyright law does not apply.
Some countries may impose sui generis protections for indigenous knowledge.
VIII. Practical Legal Scenarios
Scenario 1: Pure AI Expansion
AI takes recordings of ritual drums and adds random harmonies.
US/EU/India: Likely unprotected.
UK: Human prompt designer may have authorship.
Scenario 2: Human-Guided Expansion
Composer selects patterns, orchestrates, edits AI output, and integrates new percussion instruments.
Globally: Likely protected.
Scenario 3: AI Copies Protected Recordings
AI imitates a copyrighted recording of ritual drumming.
Risk of derivative work infringement (Rogers v. Koons, Anderson v. Stallone).
IX. Comparative Summary
| Jurisdiction | Pure AI Expansion | Human-Guided AI Expansion |
|---|---|---|
| USA | Not protected | Protected if human creativity exists |
| UK | Protected via arrangements rule | Protected |
| EU | Likely not protected | Protected if intellectual creation present |
| India | Doubtful | Protected if minimal creativity shown |
X. Conclusion
AI-expanded drum symphonies based on ancient rituals are legally complex:
Original ritual patterns are not protected.
Copyright attaches to human creative contributions.
AI alone cannot claim authorship in most jurisdictions.
Derivative or copied works risk infringement.
Cultural and moral considerations may apply, especially for indigenous traditions.
Key Principle:
Copyright protects human expression of creative reinterpretations of ancient music, not the traditional rhythms themselves or fully autonomous AI outputs.
RELATED Blog
comments