AI is no longer a distant force in music. It is already embedded in how songs are written, produced, discovered, and monetized. Consequently, for the global music publishing industry, this shift is not merely about new creative tools; it represents a structural rupture. It cuts to the core of how value is defined, how rights are assigned, and how creators are compensated.
For decades, music publishing has served as the economic translation layer for human creativity. It has converted authorship into property, copyright into capital, and artistic expression into long-term royalty streams. However, AI now puts each of these foundations under pressure. It collapses the boundary between inspiration and replication, while also eroding the distinction between human intention and machine output. As algorithms begin to generate, remix, and reinterpret music at industrial scale, the industry confronts a decisive question: can a framework built for human authorship survive in a world where machines actively participate in creation?
Against this backdrop, The Interview World spoke with Atul Churamani, Managing Director of Turnkey Music & Publishing Pvt. Ltd., at the Pre-Summit Event of the AI Impact Summit 2026, themed “Who Owns the Future of Entertainment?” and hosted by FICCI. In this wide-ranging conversation, Churamani maps how AI is reshaping the music publishing value chain and the strategic consequences this creates for publishers and creators alike.
He also explains how legacy Hindi songs are being algorithmically fused, how the rights of original composers and music directors are protected and monetized in that process, and how AI-generated music is poised to transform the economic, legal, and creative standing of human songwriters. Finally, he outlines the regulatory and policy interventions governments must pursue to protect artists and composers while still enabling innovation in an AI-driven creative economy.
What follows are the key takeaways from that discussion.
Q: How is AI reshaping the music publishing value chain and what strategic implications does this create for publishers and creators?
A: Music publishing governs the registration of musical compositions and lyrics and the collection of royalties derived from their use. In addition, publishers actively promote these works through synchronization in films, radio airplay, and other distribution channels so that composers and lyricists receive ongoing compensation. In essence, this business exists to monetize human creativity and ensure that those who create are fairly paid.
Copyright law underpins this system. In India, copyright lasts for sixty years, and in many other jurisdictions it extends to seventy years. This legal framework assumes that a human author created the work. However, the emergence of artificial intelligence now challenges that assumption in two fundamental ways.
First, we must address the nature of AI-generated output. Much of today’s AI-generated music is not truly original; it is assembled from fragments of pre-existing recordings and compositions. These outputs frequently contain protected musical works, even when the source material is difficult to identify. As a result, the central question becomes one of attribution and accountability: how do we determine which original compositions were used so that their creators receive their rightful share of royalties?
Second, we must confront the question of authorship when AI claims to generate new music. Music is built on a finite set of elements, seven notes and their combinations, many of which have already been explored over centuries. If an AI system recombines these elements based on its training on existing works, where does genuine originality end and machine-derived imitation begin? More importantly, who, if anyone, should be recognized as the author?
These questions make policy development the first and most urgent priority. Regulators must ensure that existing compositions and their creators remain protected and continue to earn royalties, even as new technologies reshape the industry. At the same time, policymakers must avoid stifling innovation. The goal must be to strike a principled balance between protection of rights and technological progress.
History offers a useful perspective. Every major technological shift, from radio to recording, from digital downloads to streaming, has initially generated fear that the music industry would be harmed. Yet those fears have consistently proven unfounded. The industry has not only survived but grown.
Artificial intelligence should be approached with the same discipline and realism. The task is not to resist it, but to shape the rules under which it operates so that human creativity remains protected, fairly compensated, and central to the future of music.
Q: In the current wave of fusion and reinterpretation of Hindi songs, how are underlying musical works licensed, and to what extent are original composers, lyricists, and rights holders receiving royalties under India’s copyright framework?
A: Music publishing exists to manage exactly this kind of creative interaction. When an artist takes an existing song and adds new material, such as inserting a rap verse into an established melody, the original composer must be paid because a protected composition is being used. At the same time, the new artist must also be compensated because they have created original musical and lyrical content.
Therefore, music publishing functions as the framework that governs these collaborations. It identifies who contributed what, assigns ownership accordingly, and ensures that every rights holder receives fair and accurate compensation. In short, it translates creative collaboration into an enforceable economic system.
Q: As AI systems generate entirely new musical works, how does this technological shift alter the economic, legal, and creative position of human songwriters and composers?
A: This debate ultimately centers on how people use technology. When electronic keyboards and drum machines first entered the market, many predicted the end of professional drummers. That prediction proved wrong. Instead of disappearing, drummers adapted. They learned to program rhythms, shape electronic sounds, and integrate new tools into their craft. As a result, they remain an essential part of the music industry today.
Artificial intelligence will follow the same trajectory. Musicians are already beginning to use AI, and over time they will increasingly master it as a creative tool. However, one principle must remain clear: a machine does not create independently. A human provides the prompt, defines the direction, and makes the creative choices. That human input is the foundation of copyright law, which recognizes creativity as a human act, not a mechanical one.
This is precisely where the current tension arises. Technology companies argue that AI generates original content on its own. Yet the legal and artistic reality is more complex. Without human intent, guidance, and judgment, there is no authorship, and without authorship, there can be no meaningful protection of creative rights.
Q: In the era of AI-driven content creation, what regulatory and policy measures should governments adopt to safeguard the rights of artists, composers, and other creative professionals while still enabling technological innovation?
A: The first and most critical issue is identification. Technology companies often claim that they do not store copyrighted material because their systems merely “learn” from it and then discard the underlying libraries. However, learning itself carries a cost. That cost is the input—the recordings, compositions, and data that labels and publishers supply. Those inputs have economic value, and the law must recognize and price that value accordingly.
At the same time, the output side requires equal scrutiny. When an AI system produces music that draws on existing works, the system must identify what it used so that the original creators receive proper compensation. Moreover, as artists increasingly use AI as part of their creative workflow, identifying the human behind the machine becomes essential.
A useful parallel already exists in U.S. law. In a patent case involving a machine-made product, the Supreme Court held that a machine cannot be an inventor because it cannot act without human prompting. That same principle applies here. Prompts, instructions, and creative direction will become a core part of a musician’s craft, and therefore a core element of authorship.
This is why informed discussion must come before regulation. Policymakers must first understand how these systems actually work. Otherwise, poorly designed rules could damage either side, creative industries or technology companies. Both matter. The technology sector will continue to grow, and the creative sector must grow with it. The law’s role is to ensure that they do so together, not in conflict.
