AI could make music rights more transparent, Dutch specialist argues

Dutch music-rights specialist Marvin Kuijs argues that AI-generated music could help the industry track contributions more clearly and distribute royalties more fairly. He says existing rights systems could adapt if AI platforms disclosed how they built songs and which works influenced the result.

Why it matters: - AI music debates usually focus on copyright ownership and whether generated songs can be protected. - Kuijs argues the bigger opportunity is using AI to make music-rights distribution more transparent and fairer. - A reporting system could help rights holders get paid based on measurable creative contributions.

What happened: - Marvin Kuijs, an independent Dutch music-rights specialist, outlined a framework for using AI attribution reports in music rights administration. - He published his perspective on October 27, 2026, from Amsterdam. - The proposal centers on existing royalty structures used by performing rights organisations such as Buma/Stemra in the Netherlands.

The details: - For songs with lyrics, Kuijs points to a common split in which the composer receives 41.67%, the lyricist receives 41.67%, and the arranger receives 16.66%. - In one example, a songwriter writes the melody and lyrics while an AI platform such as Suno generates the instrumentation, rhythm and production. - Under that model, the composer and lyricist keep their shares, while the arranger’s share would need to be allocated based on AI contribution data. - Kuijs says AI platforms could generate an attribution report showing how a track was created and which existing works influenced the arrangement. - If two works contributed equally, each rights holder could receive 8.33% of the arranger’s share. - If 20 works contributed, those rights holders could divide the same 16.66% share proportionally. - The underlying royalty system would stay the same, with only the arranger’s share distributed more transparently. - Collective management organisations already collect royalties, maintain ownership records and distribute income to composers, lyricists, publishers and other rights holders. - In Kuijs’ model, those organisations would mainly need more detailed data from AI platforms. - If a work has multiple composers or a publisher, existing ownership records would still support the royalty split. - The larger operational change would fall on AI platforms, which would need to disclose more about how their music was generated. - In a second example, a person writes only the lyrics while AI generates both the composition and the arrangement. - Kuijs says a transparent attribution system could identify which existing musical works influenced the AI-generated composition and arrangement, and by how much. - The human lyricist would retain their share, while other rights could be distributed to the original rights holders whose work contributed to the final track. - Kuijs says nobody would lose existing rights under this approach. - Instead, all contributors to the final work would receive a proportionate share.

Between the lines: - The proposal shifts the debate from blocking AI-generated music to documenting how AI uses prior works. - That approach would give rights organisations a clearer basis for distributing royalties without rebuilding the industry’s core infrastructure. - Kuijs is effectively arguing that transparency, not prohibition, is the missing piece in AI music regulation. - He says the issue is now being fought mostly in courtrooms, but industry cooperation could produce a more workable system.

What's next: - AI platforms would need to create attribution reports that show which works influenced a song and what percentage should be assigned to each. - Those reports could then be submitted to the relevant rights organisation for royalty distribution. - Kuijs says he would contribute his more than 25 years of experience in copyright, music publishing and artist development if the industry chooses to build such a framework. - The broader test will be whether AI platforms, publishers and PROs can agree on a transparent reporting standard.

The bottom line: - Kuijs argues that AI may be able to do more than generate songs. - He says AI could also help the music industry identify creative input, track influence and pay rights holders more fairly.