Intellectual Property Law – South African Law on AI-Generated Music

“In the rapidly evolving landscape of generative artificial intelligence (Al}, societies worldwide, including South Africa, are witnessing a remarkable transformation in the realm of creative expression. This technological revolution, driven by Al, is reshaping the way we conceive, create and interact with art and media.

Al’s capability to generate stunning visuals, write compelling narratives and compose intricate musical pieces is not only democratising artistry but also ushering in a new era of creative possibilities. However, these advancements pose significant challenges to existing legalframeworks, particularly in the realm of intellectual property rights.

The ease and efficiency with which Al can produce original content raises complex questions about ownership and copyright, pressing issues for legal systems worldwide, including South Africa’s.

A landmark decision by China’s Beijing Internet Court, likely to influence global conversations about the intersection of technology and intellectual property, has delivered a verdict on a unique case involving copyright infringement of Al-generated images. This ruling, from the world’s most populous nation, has profound implications for the burgeoning Al art scene and international copyright law.”

“Al-generated art: Protected in SA law?”

The Tortured Artists Department:
A LEGAL BALLAD IN Al MINOR

A trending Al-generated pop song is drawing legal fire from two global music icons after a local artist’s experimental project blurred the lines between homage, imitatfon, and infringement.

Tile track-created by an anonymous South African artist using a generative Al tool-was built on a Shakespearean sonnet and styled as a modern pop anthem. The artist instructed the Ar to compose in the lyrical and musical spirit of Taylor Swift•, while also requesting that it mimic the distinctive voice of South African pop star Tyla for the lead vocals.

But the song went a step further. Embedded within the instrumental arrangement is a harmonised Al­ generated vocal layer that closely resembles Swift’s voice-singing what sounds like a familiar melodic frag1nent: ed1oing her 2014 hit “Blank Space.” The subtle yet recognisable interpolation went: 11nnoticed by many list•eners at• tlrsl, but fan forums and music analysts were quick to identify the stylistic and tonal references.

The song gained widespread popularity on social media, with many assuming Tyla and Swift had collaborated on a surprise project.

However, both artists’ legal teams have since responded. Tyla’s team condemned the unauthorised use of her synthetic vocal likeness, while Swift’s representatives are reportedly exploring whether tile inclusion of a melodic sample or imitation constitutes a violation of copyright or moral rights in her musical works. The case raises complex legal questions at the intersection of intellectual property, technology, and personality rights. At its core is the issue of who owns the copyright in a musical work generated by artificial intelligence­ especially when it draws on public domain material, imitates real artists, and adopts recognisable stylistic elements.

One pressing concern is whether a synthetic voice that imitates a real performer-such as Tyla-can be protected under South African personality rights or moral rights provisions.

The inclusion of Al-generated background vocals that resemble Taylor Swift, potentially sampling or echoing melodic elements from her earlier recordings, further raises the question: Does digital imitation constitute copyright infringement or amount to unlawful competition?

Legal scholars have noted that South Africa may soon face a reckoning in this space. “This scenario presents a collision of copyright, personality rights, and AI ethics,” remarked one Johannesburg-based intellectual property attorney. “We’re seeing art, identity, and algorithmic creativity collide, and the law hasn’t yet evolved to fully address this reality.”

Globally, the conversation is gaining momentum. From the controversy surrounding Al­
generated ‘Fake Drake’ tracks to Taylor Swift’s strategic re­ recording of her master recordings to regain control of her music, artists and lawmakers alike are confronting the rapidly evolving role of artificial intelligence in the music industry.

These developments highlight growing concerns about authorship, ownership, and the protection of artistic identity in a digital age where replication is effortless and attribution increasingly blurred. This local case may well become a testbed for South African courts, I prompting critical reflection on how best to regulate Al-generated creativity, protect artistic identity, ancl maintain fairness in the evolving entertainment economy. “Artificial intelligence can now write songs, sing them, and sound like anyone it pleases­ but copyright law still insists on asking: ‘Who, exactly, hit record?”

Question 1 

Write a legal memorandum in which you critically evaluate the copyright implications of the Al- generated song under South African law and drawing on the strategy used by Taylor Swift to re- record her music, discuss whether South African artists like Tyla could pursue a similar strategy.

In your answer:

• Explain the requirements of authorship and originality in terms of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978.
• Assess who may own the copyright in:

• The Al-generated lyrics and melody, and
  • The final sound recording.

• Consider the significance of the public domain status of the Shakespearean source text.

• Discuss the legal position of human involvement in Al creation and whether the artist may be recognised as the author.
• Conclude with suggestions for judicial or legislative clarification on authorship of Al- generated works in South Africa.
• Distinguish between musical compositions and sound recordings under the South African Copyright Act.
• Explain the ownership structure of sound recordings and what rights the artist holds.

• Identify barriers to re-recording (e.g., contractual terms, ownership of masters, term of copyright).
• Assess whether current South African law sufficiently empowers artists to reclaim control over their work.
• Suggest legislative or contractual reforms to support artist autonomy and prevent overreaching control by record labels.

Question 2

Write a journal article in which you discuss the legal implications of using Tyla’s synthetic voice in the Al-generated song and critically assess whether the use of Tyla’s synthetic voice in the Al- generated song could amount to unlawful competition under South African law.

In your answer:

• Explain whether vocal likeness and a person’s voice are protected under South African personality rights, including identity and dignity.
• Assess whether any legal remedy exists under:
  • Delictual principles (e.g., infringement of personality rights), or
  • Moral rights under copyright law.

• Evaluate whether the use of Tyla’s voice amounts to unjustified commercial exploitation.

• Propose appropriate legal or policy responses for protecting identity against synthetic media.

• Define the general principles of unlawful competition in South African common law.

• Apply the doctrine of unjust enrichment, misappropriation, or unlawful imitation to the artist’s conduct.
• Explain how the commercial value of Tyla’s reputation and vocal identity may have been unfairly exploited.
• Refer to key South African judgments.
• Recommend whether additional statutory protection should be created for personality­ based misappropriation.

Question 3

In reference to the Constitutional Court case, Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others (CCT 320/21) {2022} ZACC 33 (21 September 2022).

Locate the above Constitutional Court Judgment and answer the following questions:

• Use an Al generative system to assist you in creating a summary of the CC case – Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others {CCT 320/21) {2022} ZACC 33 {21 September 2022.

Experts Answer on Above Question on Intellectual Property Law

Legal memorandum – AI generated song

Authorship and originality

As per the copyright act 98 of 1978, the protection on copyright completely depends on a qualifying work being original. With respect to a musical work, the author is considered as a person who is responsible for creating the work. With respect to AI, the main issue is that AI is not recognised as a legal author. As a result, the copyright should attach only to the extent that the human artist contributed in creating the music.

AI generated lyrics and melody

With respect to lyrics, it is regarded as a literary work and the melody is considered as a musical work. If AI is responsible for generating them independently, then AI is not considered as the author under the South African law. It is possible for the artist to claim copyright where there is human creative contribution being sufficiently substantial. The Sonnet by Shakespeare does not itself create copyright issues because the Shakespeare works are in public domain.

Final sound recording

The sound recording is completely different from the underlying musical composition. According to the act, a sound recording is defined as the direct, exclusively aural fixation of sounds capable of reproduction, while the author of a sound recording is the person who made its arrangement. This implies that the person responsible for generating AI generated recordings have a stronger claim to write in the recording then AI generated lyrics or melody.

Human involvement

The role and significance of human involvement is crucial, and the court would determine the contribution made by the human rather than asking who operated the AI tool. The authorship claim can be strengthened based on the original lyrics written by the artist.

Taylor Swift-style re-recording

An artist can have greater control from re-recording but it does not automatically transfer ownership of the old masters. South African artists can use this strategy based on their contracts and copyright ownership. With respect to Tyla, this strategy would be useful only with respect to work she has the legal right to re-record. The immediate re-recording can be prevented from contractual restrictions, exclusive licences, and the copyright term.

Recommended legal reform

It is important that South Africa should clarify expressly about whether AI work can qualify for copyright, the extent to which human contribution establishes authorship, who holds the ownership of AI assisted sound recordings, and whether there are specific protection available against unauthorised AI applications.

Synthetic voice and unlawful competition

Protection of Tyla’s voice

There is no specific voice right available under South African law, but an identifiable voice can be the part of a person’s identity and personality interest. The re-production of Tyla’s recognisable voice could raise a personality rights claim when the reproduction falsely suggests her participation.

Delictual remedy

Tyla can rely on actio iniuriarum in situations when unauthorised use infringes legally protected personality interest such as identity or dignity.

Moral rights

Moral rights within the copyright law protect the author’s relationship with the copyright work, and do not provide the performer a general property right in their voice. Tyla’s stronger argument with respect to a synthetic voice would potentially arise from personality rights as compared to moral rights.

Commercial exploitation

The issue has been quite stronger on the basis of the facts available as listeners allegedly that Tyla and Swift had collaborated.

Unlawful competition

The unlawful competition in South Africa is based on wrongfulness, and courts have strictly cautioned against treating unlawful competition as a general remedy for every form of commercial appropriation.

Application to the scenario

The unlawful competition argument is passing off goodwill if the synthetic voice caused listeners to believe that Tyla authorised or endorsed the song. Listeners assumed that Tyla was involved, and this particular deception differentiates the case from producing a song that happens to resemble a particular musical style.

Recommended protection

It is possible to strengthen the South African law through legislation that protects unauthorized digital replica of voices, commercial exploitation of vocal characteristics, AI generated impersonation and mandatory disclosure about the synthetic voice production through AI.

Blind SA v minister of trade, industry and competition

AI-assisted summary
Blind SA challenged South Africa’s copyright act 98 of 1978 because the copyright exceptions allowing the person with visual disabilities to convert copyrighted works into accessible format were not provided. As a result, the court had to decide whether section 6 and 7 unconstitutionally restricted access to published literary works. The court identified limitations impacting the rights including dignity, equality, freedom of expression, and education and participation. The Constitutional Court finally confirmed the declaration of constitutional invalidity, and concluded that the copyright act was unconstitutional to the extent that the relevant provision restricted access to accessible format copies for persons with disabilities.

This case clearly indicates that the copyright is not an absolute right, and it is important that the South African copyright law should operate consistently with constitutional rights.
From the analysis, it is evaluated that the main problem in the AI song in South African copyright law is the fact that the law was designed considering human creators and concessional forms of fixation, while generative AI differentiated human creative input from machine generator output. As a result, it is important to have clear rules on AI authorship within the South African law.

Want Detailed Answers with References?

The analysis of AI generated music under South African copyright law along with its authorship, sound recordings, synthetic voices, unlawful competition and artist rights above revealed significant findings in dealing with such issues along with appropriate recommendations for the improvement of the law. With our law experts in South Africa, you can expect to get assistance with your assignment exploring any dimension of law. Simply visit our South African assignment help homepage professional law expert for your assignment, or explore solved IIE assignment answers written by experts to get support for your assignment.