Performing Rights Organizations and AI Music

Performing Rights Organizations (PROs) collect royalties on behalf of songwriters, composers, and publishers when their music is publicly performed, broadcast, or streamed. PROs are a cornerstone of the music industry's revenue infrastructure. They license music to venues, radio stations, streaming platforms, and other outlets, then distribute the collected fees to rights holders.

The arrival of AI-generated music raises a question these organizations were never designed to answer: can a work created by an algorithm be registered for royalty collection? And if so, who receives the royalties?

A PRO acts as an intermediary between music creators and music users. When a restaurant plays background music, when a radio station broadcasts a song, or when a streaming platform plays a track, someone owes a royalty to the composition's rights holders. Tracking every individual use across millions of venues and platforms is impractical for individual creators. PROs handle this at scale.

The process works in three stages. First, the creator registers their compositions with a PRO. Second, the PRO licenses music users (venues, broadcasters, platforms) and collects fees. Third, the PRO distributes royalties to members based on tracked performances.

PROs collect performance royalties specifically. They do not handle mechanical royalties (physical copies, downloads) or synchronization royalties (music placed in film, TV, ads). Those are handled by other entities. Performance royalties cover public performance, broadcast, and interactive streaming.

Most countries have at least one PRO. Some have multiple competing organizations. In the US, three PROs operate: ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. Creators join one PRO exclusively for their compositions.

The following table covers the major PROs globally and their known positions on AI-generated music as of April 2026.

ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers), United States. Collects performance royalties for over 1,000,000 members. ASCAP has not published a formal AI music registration policy. Their membership terms require that works be created by human authors. The practical enforcement of this requirement for AI-assisted compositions is unclear.

BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc.), United States. The largest US PRO by revenue. BMI's terms reference "writers" and "composers" as members, implying human authorship. No public statement specifically addressing AI-generated music registration has been issued. BMI merged with New Mountain Capital in 2023, and policy updates may follow as the market evolves.

SESAC, United States. An invitation-only PRO representing a smaller but high-profile roster. SESAC has not publicly addressed AI music registration. Their selective membership model means they evaluate works individually, which could allow case-by-case decisions on AI-assisted compositions.

PRS for Music, United Kingdom. Collects performance royalties in the UK and distributes internationally through reciprocal agreements. PRS has stated that copyright law determines eligibility, and since UK law requires human authorship for copyright, purely AI-generated works would not qualify. AI-assisted works with sufficient human creative input may be eligible, but the threshold is not defined.

GEMA, Germany. Germany's sole PRO for musical works. GEMA has engaged in public discussions about AI and copyright but has not published specific registration criteria for AI music. German copyright law requires personal intellectual creation, which creates a barrier for purely AI-generated works.

SACEM, France. France's primary PRO, collecting across performance, mechanical, and synchronization rights. SACEM launched an AI task force and has published position papers on AI and creativity. They have advocated for transparency in AI training data and for maintaining human authorship requirements. Registration of purely AI-generated works is not currently supported.

STEF (Samband Tonskalda og Eigenda Flutningsrettar), Iceland. Iceland's PRO, managing performance rights for Icelandic composers. STEF is notable in the AI music discussion because Iceland has a long history of experimental and technology-driven music composition. STEF has not published a specific AI music policy, but their membership terms follow Nordic copyright conventions that require human authorship. Iceland's small creative community means policy decisions may emerge through direct dialogue rather than formal publications.

JASRAC (Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers), Japan. Japan's dominant PRO. Japan's copyright law includes provisions for computer-generated works that differ from most Western frameworks. JASRAC has not issued specific guidance on AI music registration, but the legal framework is potentially more accommodating than US or EU law. Japan's 2018 copyright amendments explicitly addressed AI and machine learning in ways that could affect eligibility.

APRA AMCOS, Australia and New Zealand. The combined PRO covering performance (APRA) and mechanical (AMCOS) rights in Australasia. Australian copyright law requires human authorship. APRA AMCOS has not published AI-specific registration policies. Works with sufficient human creative contribution in the composition process may qualify under existing frameworks.

The central question is straightforward: if you create music using AI tools like Suno, Udio, or Stable Audio, can you register those compositions with a PRO and collect royalties when they are streamed or performed?

The answer, as of April 2026, is mostly no for purely AI-generated works, and unclear for AI-assisted works.

The obstacle is authorship. Copyright law in most jurisdictions requires human authorship as a precondition for copyright protection. If a work has no copyright, it has no rights holder. If there is no rights holder, there is no one for a PRO to represent. The chain breaks at the first link.

The US Copyright Office has stated that works "generated by a machine" without meaningful human creative input cannot be registered. The UK requires works to be the product of human intellectual effort. The EU's approach varies by member state, but the general direction favors human authorship requirements.

Japan is a partial exception. Its copyright framework includes specific provisions for "computer-generated works" that may provide a path for certain AI compositions, though the practical application to modern AI music tools has not been tested in court.

The situation changes when AI is used as a tool rather than as the sole creator. If a human composes a melody, writes lyrics, arranges the structure, and uses AI to generate accompaniment or refine the production, the resulting work may contain sufficient human authorship to qualify for copyright and PRO registration.

The US Copyright Office has indicated that works containing a mix of human and AI-generated elements can be registered, but only the human-authored portions receive protection. In practice, this means a song where a human wrote the lyrics and melody but AI generated the instrumental arrangement could potentially be registered, with protection covering the human-authored components.

For PRO registration, this creates a gray area. Most PROs register compositions (melody and lyrics), not recordings. If the composition elements (melody, lyrics, harmonic structure) are human-authored and the AI contribution is limited to production or arrangement, registration may be defensible.

No PRO has published clear guidelines on where the line falls. The practical test is whether you can articulate specific creative decisions you made in the composition process. Typing a text prompt and selecting from AI-generated options is on weaker ground than composing a melody and using AI to harmonize it.

Before attempting to register AI-involved music with a PRO, consider these questions.

1. Did you compose the melody? If the melody is AI-generated from a text prompt with no human modification, PRO registration is unlikely to succeed under current frameworks.

2. Did you write the lyrics? Human-authored lyrics strengthen a registration claim, even if the instrumental elements involve AI.

3. Can you document your creative process? Screenshots, project files, drafts, and revision history all help establish the extent of human contribution.

4. Is the AI contribution limited to production and arrangement? If the AI handled sound design, mixing, or accompaniment while you composed the core musical work, your claim is stronger.

5. Which jurisdiction applies? If you are registering with JASRAC (Japan), the legal framework may be more accommodating than ASCAP (US) or PRS (UK).

6. Have you reviewed your PRO's current terms? Check for recent updates. Policies are evolving, and your PRO may have issued guidance since this page was last reviewed.

7. Are you prepared for the registration to be challenged? If a PRO discovers that a registered work is primarily AI-generated, they may revoke the registration and reclaim distributed royalties.

ASCAP: https://www.ascap.com/help/ascap-basics

BMI: https://www.bmi.com/creators

SESAC: https://www.sesac.com/

PRS for Music: https://www.prsformusic.com/

GEMA: https://www.gema.de/en/

SACEM: https://www.sacem.fr/en

STEF: https://www.stef.is/

JASRAC: https://www.jasrac.or.jp/ejhp/

APRA AMCOS: https://www.apraamcos.com.au/

US Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance for AI-Generated Works: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/

RIAA lawsuits against Suno and Udio (June 2024): https://www.riaa.com/