The rise of AI tools has made it incredibly easy to generate music from a prompt, and many indie musicians are experimenting with AI-only albums. But if you plan to release that music on Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube, etc., there are some surprising hurdles. The legal and platform landscape around pure AI-generated music is still unsettled. For example, one recent industry report warns that by 2028, AI-created tracks could make up ~20% of streaming revenue. Surveys also suggest that roughly 60% of musicians now use AI tools for composing or production. That means platforms and labels are scrambling to write new rules.
While anyone can click a button and create a new song, navigating the “who owns this?” and “can I actually sell it?” questions is tricky. This guide walks through the key issues AI-only creators face, focusing on two popular distributors (DistroKid and Unchained Music) and practical tips you can use. We’ll cover copyright uncertainty, how different distributors handle AI music, copyright claim pitfalls, the reality of “unlimited uploads,” author credits, visibility risks (like YouTube artist channels), and even advice on dealing with bogus copyright strikes. Let’s dive in!
Legal Gray Zones: Who Owns AI Music?
First up, the law. Most copyright systems still assume a human made the work. In the U.S., for instance, official guidance now says purely AI-generated songs can’t be copyrighted. In other words, if there was no real person creatively steering the process, the song doesn’t meet the “created by an author” rule. This creates a weird situation: your AI hit might technically have no owner under current law (a judge might say it’s in the public domain!).
Outside the U.S., rules vary, but many countries are similarly uncertain. The takeaway is that AI-only compositions are a legal gray area. You should operate under the assumption that you’ll need to claim ownership when uploading – and be ready to explain your case if challenged. For example, the major labels have already sued an AI company (Anthropic) for using copyrighted lyrics in its AI training, even though they’re not suing the end-users. That suggests licensors are watching AI-generated releases closely, which could affect anyone publishing AI music. Bottom line: Don’t count on clear copyright protection for a song an AI made by itself. Always double-check your AI tool’s license (some commercial AI generators do grant you full rights to the outputs, but read the fine print!). Keep records (timestamps, project files) of how you created the track. In practice, streaming services will treat you as the “owner” when you upload, but remember the law may not fully back that up yet.
Distributor Policies: What DistroKid and Unchained Say
Different distribution services have taken very different stances on AI. Here’s a look at two popular ones.
DistroKid is huge among indie artists for unlimited uploads at one price.
Officially, DistroKid hasn’t published a clear “AI policy” on its site. Their co-founder Phil Kaplan has only said that DistroKid “complies with the policies and requirements of each streaming service”. In other words, DistroKid itself defers to Spotify, Apple, etc. However, creators have spotted hints of caution. A music industry news site noted that other distributors explicitly ban AI “100% created” songs, and that CD Baby’s policy bluntly states, “You will not be able to distribute A.I.-generated content”. DistroKid hasn’t made such a declaration, but in practice some users report that pure AI releases can be flagged.
For example, one Redditor noted DistroKid was “super strict on AI music” – if you upload a track that was just output from Suno (or another AI) with no edits, DistroKid may hold or even reject it for lacking proper rights. Concretely, DistroKid will ask you to confirm you own 100% of the composition. If your AI music sounds very much like something else (or is directly derived from known recordings), they may suspend it. Creators have shared experiences of albums “stuck in processing” for weeks or rejected outright because the system detected sampling. (In one case, another distributor wrote: “Any time you sample any part of a recording you did not record yourself… you CANNOT distribute any content you do not hold 100% distribution rights for.” – a principle DistroKid likely applies too.)
If you’re releasing AI originals, fill in the credit fields carefully (more on that below), and be ready to answer any questions from DistroKid support about how the music was made. If it’s a cover (e.g. AI singing someone else’s song), always use their cover license ($12/year per song) or get a mechanical license, since DistroKid enforces those strictly. In general, even though DistroKid promises “unlimited” uploads, think of it as “unlimited subject to review.” Uploading dozens of generic AI beats at once might trigger their editorial filter.
Unchained Music
Unchained is a newer distributor known for $0 upfront cost (they take a percentage instead) and nice features for indie artists. Unchained has been very clear about AI: in mid-2025 they completely overhauled their policy in favor of human creativity. Their FAQ bluntly says: “Fully machine-generated ‘press-a-button’ tracks with no meaningful human input are not accepted.” They explicitly require clear human involvement (mixing, arrangement, performing, etc.) and proof that any AI tool used is properly licensed and ethically trained. In practice, if you try to upload an entirely AI-composed track, Unchained will ask you to show what you did to it. They even list approved AI platforms (like Hitcraft.ai and Beatoven.ai) whose licenses you should document. In short, Unchained says yes to AI assistance but no to generic AI dumps. If you’re using Unchained, expect to upload evidence (such as an AI model subscription confirmation or proof of dataset licensing) along with your release. They’ve built this into their system. And they remind artists that their mission is “Real Artists. Real Work.” – so if your project is just 100% AI output with no human touches, Unchained will delay or reject it.
If you do use AI, make sure you intervene creatively. Cut a portion of the AI beat, replace it with your own guitar riff or drum loop. Add or re-arrange sections. That way you can honestly say “Artist performed or arranged part of this track.” Also, gather documentation: a screenshot of your AI session showing usage rights, a license email from the AI service, etc. If Unchained asks, you can upload those as “supporting documentation.”
Many smaller distributors (like TuneCore, Symphonic, CD Baby, etc.) have similarly warned or hinted that they won’t distribute 100% AI music. One news article noted that TuneCore and Believe (parent of TuneCore) aim not to distribute anything 100% AI. And CD Baby’s help center flat-out says to not distribute AI content. While you can find ways to release your songs (some people still upload on DistroKid and it goes through), expect any distributor to scrutinize AI tracks.
Copyright Claims: What Could Go Wrong
One of the biggest headaches with AI music is copyright enforcement. Even if you wrote fresh lyrics, if the AI model you used scraped old recordings to learn, your song might inadvertently “contain” copyrighted elements. Here are common scenarios:
If your AI output is clearly based on an existing song (like you prompted it to rewrite a famous tune or style), it’s effectively a cover or sample. Distributors treat it like any other cover: you must secure a mechanical license and credit the original songwriters. DistroKid’s cover license (or a service like Easy Song Licensing) is mandatory for AI-driven cover songs. Unchained similarly requires proper licensing. Failing to do this is the quickest way to get a takedown. In one striking example, a creator who used Suno to remake a track found their distributor stopped their release, warning that it “appears that you are using the mastered instrumentals from the original artists’ versions” and demanding a license. In plain terms, if your AI track sounds like a known recording (because it is one, in effect), expect blockages.
Even if your track is original and not intended to sample anything, copyright systems might still flag it. Many platforms use automated Content ID: Spotify and YouTube, for example, fingerprint every track. If your AI tune happens to match some copyrighted material (some models inadvertently regurgitate) or even just resembles it closely, the system could issue a claim. For instance, YouTube’s Content ID requires no proof from claimants – someone can throw your song into the database and your channel could get a copyright claim, even if you didn’t actually use their work. On streaming services, if Apple or Spotify detect an unlicensed sample, they could remove the song from their stores. Distributors often won’t fight this for you; you’d have to dispute it yourself.
Before reaching stores, distributors may also vet your music. Unchained’s policy (and now DistroKid’s implicit stance) is to reject any track without clear rights. They usually do a front-end review right after you upload. If your AI track fails (no license, looks like a sample), it will be flagged, delayed, or rejected. TuneCore did this in 2023 when many users opted into AI content protection – they automatically blocked tracks they suspected.
f you do get a takedown notice or Content ID match, here’s what to do: Don’t delete your song immediately. Collect your evidence (AI project files, license info), then dispute the claim through the platform’s process. Explain you own the output via your AI license, or that it’s an original composition. Some creators even pre-fight this by publishing a “use license” from the AI service. And consider using an official Content ID distribution service (like the one DistroKid offers) so your songs are in the fingerprint database. That way, if someone falsely claims it, the system can counter-claim in your favor.
When mixing AI and known works, err on the side of licensing. For example, if you sample a drum loop via AI that resembles a famous beat, get that sample cleared. A community trick is to “recreate” the part yourself: extract stems from the AI track and re-record them in your DAW (with MIDI instruments). One redditor noted that by reconstructing the music manually, “there’s no way anything is detected as a sample anymore either”. This is advanced, but it shows creators often rebuild AI outputs to ensure originality.
Unlimited Uploads…Until They’re Not
Distributors love to advertise “unlimited songs!” for a low yearly fee, and it is liberating compared to per-track fees. Both DistroKid and Unchained tout unlimited uploads. However, remember that unlimited doesn’t mean “no standards.” Every distributor has quality controls. Real-world creators have found that loading up auto-generated tracks can trigger those controls. For instance, on a Reddit thread titled “DistroKid is unlimited… until it’s limited. A sad love story”, a game music composer complained that DistroKid initially let him upload tons of tracks but later reviewed and removed many of them. While we can’t quote Reddit directly here, the message is clear: if an upload reeks of bulk AI output (especially with generic titles), the platform might intervene and silently will limit your account.
Unchained’s recent policy change is a perfect example: they used to accept anything, but once they noticed a flood of generic AI releases, they added strict AI. That shows the limit of “unlimited” – they only accept creative use of the allowance.
Instead of dumping 50 AI-generated tracks at once, release a smaller batch with some human variation. Give each album a unique theme or tweak (for example, make one EP all ambient, another more upbeat). This not only helps human listeners, but it looks more intentional to editors. Also, use distinctive song titles and artwork. Avoid names like “Unspecified AI Beat 1, 2, 3…” which scream algorithmic spam. Good metadata and artwork can go a long way to pass those editorial checks.
Crediting and Authorship: Putting a Human Name on It
Streaming platforms and distributors generally expect at least one human creator behind a release. When you upload a song, they’ll ask for the artist name, songwriter(s), producer(s), etc. But who do you put down if the AI wrote the whole thing?
List Yourself (or a Pseudonym) as the primary composer/performer if you contributed anything creative. Did you edit the arrangement, tweak the mix, or write lyrics? You can legitimately claim that. Even if all you did was generate the beat and record vocals, you directed the creation, so many creators put their own name (or an alias) as songwriter/producer. This gives a real person credit on the title.
Unchained explicitly says that if an AI model was used as a composer or lyricist, it must be credited in metadata. DistroKid and others don’t have a special “AI Model” field, but you could list the AI as an “Additional Contributor” or even mention it in the producer/arranger slot. Another approach: in your release notes or description on YouTube, say “Produced with help from [AI Model Name].” This transparency is recommended. (On Reddit, one user checked SunoAI’s terms and pointed out that if you pay for the service, you’re not required to credit the AI on releases – but doing so can safeguard your credibility.)
If your AI track mimics an existing song’s melody or lyrics, you must credit the original songwriters as for any cover. Even if an AI translates a famous poet’s text into lyrics, you legally owe credit. Distributors will flag any uncredited cover usage. Don’t fabricate human writers who didn’t exist, and don’t try to hide that AI was used – you’ll usually have opportunities to mention it. But you can frame it as: “lyrics and vocals by [Your Name], original music generated with [AI Tool].” This way human creativity (your voice/lyrics, plus any editing you did) is in the spotlight, which most platforms prefer.
Visibility and Platform Quirks
Beyond legality, AI-generated music can have discoverability challenges. It’s not that Spotify or YouTube explicitly hide AI tracks (yet), but the indirect effects matter.
Official Artist Channels on YouTube
YouTube has a system called the Official Artist Channel (OAC) that merges all your music videos and uploads under one brand. Typically only established artists or labels get this. If you release as a one-person AI project (especially without a label backing), you may not get an OAC easily. That means your music videos will appear under a generic “Various Artists” playlist or an autogenerated channel, missing out on subscriber linking and artist analytics. The practical tip: Use a consistent artist name and claim it in your YouTube for Artists profile if possible. If you have a personal channel with any followers, consider linking your uploads to that. Many indie distributors can “claim” YouTube for you. Without an OAC, your AI project might struggle to look like a recognized artist in the algorithm’s eyes.
Recommendation Algorithms
Streaming services tend to push content that elicits strong user engagement. If your AI songs have robotic names or no listener data (because they get flagged or removed), they might not get recommended on Discover Weekly, Radio, or TikTok playlists. There’s anecdotal chatter that services may clean up “empty catalog” releases – for example, unlabeled noise tracks or obviously AI loops might be de-prioritized. We’ve also seen YouTube planning to label synthetic content: YouTube’s blog promises that soon creators must disclose “realistic altered or synthetic” material or face penalties. This applies to AI-generated audio/video. So it’s in your interest to be upfront about AI usage. That way you avoid being hit by these new filters accidentally.
Some creators report that AI vocals can’t be monetized easily if the system can’t verify their originality. Also, AI voices sometimes get flagged under vocal impersonation rules (though that’s murky territory). If you plan to monetize on YouTube or accept Shazam/SoundExchange payouts, be aware an automatic match can demonetize videos (if the system thinks it’s not your own voice/instrument). Having human vocals or real instrument recordings can help.
Platforms like YouTube allow anyone to submit a takedown claim. Some unscrupulous users might target AI videos, hoping they stick. For instance, if your AI song somewhat resembles a commercial track, someone might file a bogus claim. In the YouTube world, disputing a claim involves filing a counter-notice, which can take weeks. During that time your video might be demonetized or offline. On DSPs, if someone uploads music that sounds like your AI track into a claim system, they could end up earning royalties from your streams (since they claim it). The official recourse is to file a copyright complaint, but that’s slow and platform-dependent.
Keep good records. If someone strikes your AI release, have your creation dates and AI license info ready to prove you made it. Some artists even timestamp their lyrics or AIs sessions by emailing themselves or using blockchain services, just to have extra proof of origin. If you get a false strike, don’t panic – file an official dispute. If you used a service like DistroKid or Unchained, contact their support too; they often have legal teams who can intervene with the DSP/YouTube. Also be cautious of forums or groups promising “AI ID protection” – there’s no magic shield. The best defense is transparency (so claimants look a bit silly) and readiness to counter-claim.
Distributing AI-made music is both exciting and tricky. The good news is, best practices are emerging from creators just like you. Use the tips above to navigate rights issues, format your metadata, and protect your work. Over time, laws and platforms will catch up – but for now, a smart, human-centered approach will help your AI tunes find listeners without falling into legal limbo.
