On February 21, Loyola Law School hosted the 2025 Entertainment Law Review (“ELR”) Symposium on its campus. This year’s theme was ‘From Precedent to Algorithm: Navigating AI, Law, and the New Entertainment Frontier.’ The ELR Symposium kicked off with a panel that addressed the emergence of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the music industry. The panel consisted of notable entertainment attorneys, including Christiane Kinney, Founder of Kinney Law, Carron Mitchell, Partner at Nixon Peabody, and Scott McDowell, Partner at King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano. Each panelist shared their thoughts on the legality of using generative AI to produce creative works, stream royalties, and perform voice mimicry—as well as the possible future implications of such uses.
Human creativity, without a doubt, lies at the heart of copyright law, and the main goal of legislation is to encourage authors to continue creating new works.[1] AI can be a useful tool to facilitate creativity by putting into existence the works that lie within the artists’ minds. Carron Mitchell believes that AI “will change the game” and allow musicians to “create in ways they couldn’t before.”[2] But what happens when expressive works become overly reliant on generative AI?
AI Applications in the Music Industry
Each of the panelists agreed that AI can be used to help artists struggling with writer’s block by spurring the creative process. Musicians and songwriters can use AI to generate content in just seconds,[3] while audio engineers can use it to correct vocal pitch and mix and master recordings.[4] Christiane Kinney shared that for streaming platforms like Spotify, AI algorithms can improve the efficiency of the reporting process for false streams by recognizing certain patterns exhibiting fraud. With these benefits, there are risks to artists and talent—like infringement—as technology advances. Scott McDowell chimed, “It doesn’t seem fair to use someone else’s original work or name, image, and likeness for one’s own profit without adequately compensating the crediting artist.”[5]
What Legal Safeguards Should Be Imposed?
Since AI is still relatively new, the law has yet to catch up. The entire panel argued that legal safeguards should be imposed to protect the primary goals of copyright law. But the specifics of those safeguards are up for debate. McDowell suggested that the Copyright Office could be stricter in identifying and weeding out applications that note AI use. Mitchell added that record labels can push for transparency by requiring artists and producers to disclose AI use, like how they have mandatory disclosure in place for samples. Kinney further proposed including a water seal in AI-generated music so it can be easily tracked.
Amidst the law-making discussions, Symposium moderator Samantha Dietrich asked the panelists about their views on Tennessee’s ‘ELVIS Act,’ which passed on March 21, 2024, to “protect musicians from AI-generated synthetic media.”[6] According to Kinney, if other states plan to follow suit, the related statute should be written narrowly to avoid fraud and a slippery slope as to name, image, and likeness. McDowell added that the statute should be passed on the federal level to ensure uniformity across the states. Whatever the proposed solution may be, the more safeguards, the better. Otherwise, as Kinney put it perfectly, we are “at risk of deleting creativity and art in a way that is really dangerous to society.”[7]
Drafting Contracts with AI in Mind
As we wait for more AI legislation to pass, lawyers can protect their clients by carefully drafting contracts to consider the emerging risks as AI advances. In her practice, Mitchell regularly includes approval rights when negotiating contract agreements on her client’s behalf. These clauses prohibit the use of the artist’s work to train AI without their consent, bars sampling and interpolating without disclosure, and mandating disclosure of AI-generated use.[8] As the saying goes, it’s better to be safe than sorry!
[1] Kevin J. Hickey, Copyright Law: An Introduction and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12339 (Mar. 7, 2023).
[2] Carron Mitchell, “The AI Trap: Streaming Royalties Fraud and the Role of Fair Use in Voice Mimicry,” Presentation, From Precedent to Algorithm: Navigating AI, Law, and the New Entertainment Frontier, Loyola Law School, Feb. 21, 2025.
[3] Alex Semancik, How AI is transforming the creative economy and music industry, Ohio Today, https://www.ohio.edu/news/2024/04/how-ai-transforming-creative-economy-music-industry (Last updated Feb. 4, 2025).
[4] Andrew R. Chow, AI’s Influence on Music Is Raising Some Difficult Questions, Time, https://time.com/6340294/ai-transform-music-2023/ (Dec. 4, 2023, 1:38 PM).
[5] Scott McDowell, “The AI Trap: Streaming Royalties Fraud and the Role of Fair Use in Voice Mimicry,” Presentation, From Precedent to Algorithm: Navigating AI, Law, and the New Entertainment Frontier, Loyola Law School, Feb. 21, 2025.
[6] Office of the Governor, Gov. Lee Signs ELVIS Act Into Law, Tennessee State Government, https://www.tn.gov/governor/news/2024/3/21/photos–gov–lee-signs-elvis-act-into-law.html (Mar. 21, 2024, 3:08 PM).
[7] Christiane Kinney, “The AI Trap: Streaming Royalties Fraud and the Role of Fair Use in Voice Mimicry,” Presentation, From Precedent to Algorithm: Navigating AI, Law, and the New Entertainment Frontier, Loyola Law School, Feb. 21, 2025.
[8] Mitchell, supra note 2.