1. Introduction

Automated digital music recomposition tools (AI-based or algorithmic systems that rearrange, remix, or generate new musical compositions) raise a complex copyright question:

Can the tool itself be protected as a copyrightable “work,” and separately, can its outputs be protected?

To answer this, we must distinguish between:

1. The software/tool (program code + system architecture)
2. The musical output generated by the tool
3. The role of human authorship in both

Copyright law across jurisdictions generally protects original expression fixed in a tangible medium, but struggles with autonomous or semi-autonomous creation systems.

2. Legal Framework (General Principles)

Most jurisdictions (US, UK, EU, India) follow similar core principles:

A. Software protection

Automated music recomposition tools are usually protected as:

• Literary works (source code, object code)
• Sometimes database/compilation rights (EU)
• Protection requires originality in selection, arrangement, and structure

B. Music output protection

For outputs:

• Must have human authorship (US doctrine especially strict)
• Pure AI-generated works may not qualify for copyright
• Human involvement must show creative control

3. Key Case Laws (Detailed Analysis)

CASE 1: Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991, USA)

Facts

A telephone directory was copied. Rural claimed copyright in its listings.

Issue

Can simple compilation of data be protected?

Holding

The US Supreme Court held:

• Facts are not copyrightable
• Only original selection or arrangement qualifies

Principle relevant to music tools

For music recomposition tools:

• The underlying dataset (notes, sound samples) is not protected
• But the creative structure of software design may be

Importance

Established the “originality threshold”:

• Very important for algorithmic systems
• Pure mechanical output = not protected

CASE 2: Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd (2012, Australia)

Facts

A computer system generated Safety Data Sheets automatically from a database.

Issue

Whether automatically generated text is copyrightable.

Holding

The court ruled:

• No human author → no copyright in generated sheets
• Software system itself may be protected, but outputs were not original works

Principle

• Automation without human creativity = no copyright in output
• Important analogy for AI music tools

Relevance to music recomposition tools

If a system automatically generates music:

• Output may NOT be protected unless human input is substantial

CASE 3: Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades (2009, CJEU)

Facts

A media monitoring company copied 11-word extracts of articles.

Issue

What constitutes originality in EU copyright law?

Holding

Court held:

• Even small fragments can be protected if they reflect author’s intellectual creation

Principle

Introduced EU standard of:

“author’s own intellectual creation”

Application to music tools

• If a tool’s algorithm reflects creative choices in arrangement, harmony, rhythm generation, it may qualify as protected software expression
• But purely functional algorithms may not

CASE 4: SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd (2012, CJEU)

Facts

World Programming replicated SAS software functionality.

Issue

Can software functionality be copyrighted?

Holding

• Functionality, programming language, and data formats are NOT protected
• Only expression (source code) is protected

Principle

For music recomposition tools:

• The idea of recomposition (algorithm logic) is not protected
• Only the specific code implementation is protected

Key takeaway

Very important limitation:

Copyright does NOT protect the musical “method,” only its expression in code.

CASE 5: Naruto v Slater (Monkey Selfie Case) (2018, USA)

Facts

A monkey took selfies using a photographer’s camera.

Issue

Can a non-human author hold copyright?

Holding

Court ruled:

• Non-human authors cannot hold copyright
• Human authorship is required

Principle

Extremely relevant to AI music tools:

• Fully autonomous AI-generated music likely has no copyright protection

Application

If a music recomposition tool generates a track without human intervention:

• Output may fall into public domain

CASE 6: Thaler v Perlmutter (2023, USA)

Facts

AI system “Creativity Machine” generated artwork without human input. The creator claimed copyright.

Issue

Can AI be an author?

Holding (US Copyright Office + court confirmation):

• NO copyright without human authorship

Principle

• Human creativity is mandatory
• AI is only a tool, not an author

Relevance to music recomposition tools:

• If tool autonomously recomposes music → no copyright
• If human selects, edits, arranges → possible protection

CASE 7: Express Newspapers plc v Liverpool Daily Post (1985, UK)

Facts

Dispute over newspaper content and reproduction.

Issue

Whether editorial arrangement is protected.

Holding

Court emphasized:

• Copyright protects skill, judgment, and labor in arrangement

Principle

Very relevant for music tools:

• If a developer designs a system that involves:
  • curated datasets
  • structured recomposition logic
  • rule-based musical creativity

Then the software architecture itself may be protected

CASE 8: Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd (2012, CJEU)

Facts

Football fixture lists were compiled using rules and effort.

Issue

Are “sweat of the brow” compilations protected?

Holding

• No protection unless there is intellectual creation
• Pure effort is insufficient

Application to music tools

• A recomposition tool built purely by effort (not creativity) is not protected strongly
• Needs creative algorithm design choices

4. Synthesis: Protection of Music Recomposition Tools

A. What IS protected?

1. Software code

• Source code of recomposition tools
• Algorithms expressed in code
• Interface design (if original)

2. Architecture

• Original arrangement of modules
• Unique workflow systems

3. Training data compilation (limited protection)

• If curated creatively

B. What is NOT protected?

• Musical style or genre logic
• Pure recomposition method (idea)
• AI-generated music without human input
• Functional algorithms (SAS case principle)

C. Output protection depends on human involvement

5. Key Legal Principle

Across all cases, a consistent doctrine emerges:

Copyright protects human intellectual creation, not autonomous machine output or mere functional systems.

6. Conclusion

Automated digital music recomposition tools are generally:

✔ Protected as copyrightable works:

• As software (literary work)
• If they show original intellectual creation (Infopaq, SAS limits)

❌ Not protected:

• Musical outputs generated without human authorship
• Functional recomposition logic (ideas/methods)
• Pure automation results (Naruto, Thaler)