Examining the new registration policies for AI-assisted works and the immense challenges Performance Rights Organizations face in tracking royalties.

Performance Rights Organizations (PROs) and Neighboring Rights Organizations are the gatekeepers of music compensation, responsible for tracking millions of songs across thousands of global platforms and distributing trillions of royalties annually. The sudden rise of AI music—which generates immense volume and creates complex, layered authorship—has forced these administrative giants to rapidly rewrite their fundamental rules.

In North America, the three major collecting societies—**ASCAP, BMI, and SoundExchange**—have adopted aligned policies to integrate AI, but the technological hurdles remain enormous.

The Two Types of Music Rights Organizations

It's crucial to distinguish between the two types of organizations handling music rights, as they manage royalties for different copyrights:

The policies for AI primarily concern the **Musical Composition** (ASCAP/BMI) but the challenges affect all royalty streams. [4]

Policy Alignment: The "Partially AI-Generated" Works

In late 2025, ASCAP and BMI aligned their policies to clarify what types of AI-assisted music they will officially register and license. Their stance is a direct reflection of the U.S. Copyright Office's principle that copyright requires **human authorship**.

The New AI Registration Rules:

• **Acceptance of Partially AI-Generated Works:** Both organizations now accept registrations for musical works that combine elements of AI-generated content with elements of **human authorship**. This covers the majority of human-AI collaboration where AI acts as a tool. [1]
• **Human-Led Creative Process Required:** To qualify, the human creator must still be the driving force, demonstrating **meaningful creative contribution** by selecting, arranging, editing, or integrating the AI output into a unique final composition. [3]
• **Ineligibility of Prompt-Only Works:** Musical compositions that are **entirely created** using only text prompts without any meaningful human creative input remain ineligible for registration. This excludes the "pure AI" songs generated by tools like Suno. [2]

The Royalty Tracking Challenge of "AI Slop"

Even with clear registration policies, the AI boom presents massive operational problems for tracking music performances and calculating royalties:

Metadata Fragmentation

AI-assisted works may have complex authorship splits (e.g., Composer A, Lyricist B, AI Model C). Current systems rely on accurate **metadata** (titles, IPI numbers, writer shares) to match the performance data to the registered work. AI's ability to create and upload content rapidly under false or inconsistent metadata tags creates vast data fragmentation, leading to royalties being classified as "unmatched" and potentially withheld. [4]

Combating Streaming Fraud and Dilution

The flood of AI-generated music enables massive **streaming fraud**. Bad actors use AI to generate thousands of unique songs and use bots to stream each song a small number of times. [5]

• **Impact:** This artificially inflates play counts, diverting money from the finite royalty pool that should have been paid to legitimate human creators. This is a primary financial threat to the PRO ecosystem.
• **Platform Response:** PROs rely on streaming services (DSPs) to implement stricter anti-fraud and anti-impersonation rules, such as those that detect mass uploads, duplicate tracks, and fake accounts.

Advocacy and the "Human Creators First" Mandate

Beyond policy alignment, the PROs have taken a highly active role in shaping the legal environment through advocacy, emphasizing two core principles:

No Fair Use for Unlicensed Training

PROs have firmly stated that the mass ingestion of copyrighted musical works by AI companies for training without permission or compensation **"is not fair use, but theft."** This position backs the ongoing lawsuits against generative AI platforms and supports the core mandate of the **TRAIN Act** to compel transparency. [2]

Endorsing Meaningful AI Legislation

ASCAP and BMI have lobbied heavily in Washington D.C., supporting the creation of new laws like the **NO FAKES Act** (to protect identity) and the **TRAIN Act** (to enforce copyright transparency). They view federal legislation as the only reliable path to establishing an even playing field for human creators globally. [1]

Conclusion

The PROs are the essential bridge between the legal world of copyright and the commercial reality of payment. By accepting partially AI-generated works, they are adapting to the modern creator's workflow. However, the future stability of the royalty system depends on their ability to integrate advanced AI-driven tools—like digital fingerprinting and the potential Attribution Share Model—to overcome the challenges of content saturation and sophisticated streaming fraud.

References & Further Reading

1. ASCAP, BMI and SOCAN Announce Alignment on AI Registration Policies - BMI News.
2. ASCAP, BMI and SOCAN will now accept registrations of 'partially' AI-generated musical works - Music Business Worldwide.
3. AI Joins the PRO Roster: ASCAP, BMI, and SOCAN Open Doors to Partially AI-Generated Music - Rareform Audio.
4. How Musicians Collect Royalties: The Four Essential Platforms Every Artist Needs - Medium.
5. How AI-generated songs are fueling the rise of streaming farms - WIPO Magazine.