Authorship in artificial intelligence generated music

Recently, artificial intelligence technology has the ability to learn from the training data provided and to create works of art that are not copies of the products in the training set. Although today's artificial intelligence type is called Weak Artificial Intelligence because of its unconsciousness, it could still imitate human mental skills and can create musical compositions that are mostly imitations or transfers of style/genre in the field of music. Artificial intelligence music applications such as AIVA and Amper allow both musicians and users to create musical pieces without musical knowledge. Creating musical composition with this way raise questions about whether these compositions qualify as works in terms of copyright law and who the owner of the work would be if they are accepted as works. In intellectual law, the concept of work refers to the human through the criterion of originality similarly to the concept of author refers to the necessity of being human. The fact that artificial intelligence is a not a human being leads the music it creates not to qualify as works and the artificial intelligence not be the author of works. In order to overcome this situation, it is suggested that the subjective originality concept that is dependent on humans should be changed. Thus, it would be sufficient for the AI music to exhibit creativity to the extent that it cannot be distinguished from a composition made by a human being, so these musical products will be considered original and would gain the status of a work. In this case, because AI is not human, the musical pieces it composes would be in the public domain. In order to overcome the condition of human being in the concept of authorship, it is suggested that people such as the programmer or the last user who participate in the music creation process of the AI should be the author of the work. It is thought that some possibilities in the current copyright regulations can be expanded and applied, and in this context, it is stated that the work made for hire doctrine in the USA or the computer-generated works application in the UK example could be examples. Another alternative is the suggestion that the interests of the investor can be protected with sui generis rights like in the example of database protection. All options regarding authorship have both supporting and opposing explanations. As a result, AI creates works similar to humans, and this should have a reflection in law. Keywords: artificial intelligence, music, artificial intelligence music, concept of work, authorship