i'm not a lawyer. this isn't legal advice. if your use case has real money on the line, hire someone who can write you a formal opinion. what follows is the honest state of ai-generated music licensing as of mid-2026, as best i understand it from running flowy in a strict-rules jurisdiction.
the short version
in most jurisdictions, purely ai-generated music (output from suno, udio, flowy, mubert, brain.fm, and the rest) is currently not copyrightable by anyone. no human author = no copyright. this has been the consistent position of the us copyright office, the uk ipo, and the eu's emerging ai act framework as of 2026.
the consequence: anyone can use ai-generated tracks for any purpose, including commercial use, because there's no copyright owner to grant or refuse a license. in theory.
in practice, it's more nuanced than that.
what the tools' terms of service actually say
most ai music platforms have terms of service that:
- claim some kind of rights in the generated output (typically licensing it to you under specific conditions),
- restrict the kinds of commercial use you can put the output to, depending on your subscription tier,
- require attribution in some contexts,
- retain rights to use your prompts and outputs to improve their own models.
whether these terms are legally enforceable when the output itself isn't copyrightable is an open question. tos can constrain your behavior as a user of the platform. it can't create copyright where there is none. but tos violations can still get your account terminated, which matters more than the abstract law for most users.
what about training data?
the bigger legal exposure is on the model side, not the output side. suno and udio are both currently in active litigation with the major record labels over whether their training included copyrighted material without permission. the outcomes of these cases will substantially shape the category, possibly forcing settlement, licensing arrangements, or model retraining.
from a user's perspective: this affects you if a court ultimately rules that outputs derived from infringing training are themselves problematic. that's a minority legal position right now, but it's not ridiculous. it's a real risk to be aware of, especially for high-stakes commercial uses.
commercial use, in practice
for most everyday commercial uses (putting ai-generated music behind a youtube video, using it in a podcast intro, background for a small business video) the practical risk right now is low. content id systems don't flag ai-generated tracks (no reference recording to match against), no rights-holder is going to sue you over a vlog backing track, and the platform's tos either permits or tolerates it.
the higher-stakes cases:
- music in a paid advertisement: agencies want clean licensing, won't accept “the tos allows it” without backup.
- tracks released to spotify or apple music as your own songs: depending on the distributor, this is now either explicitly forbidden, requires disclosure, or is being actively enforced against.
- sync licensing to film and tv: buyers in this market want title-chain that ai-generated music can't provide.
- training your own model on generated output: this is where the tos enforcement bites hardest. expect a lawsuit, not just an account termination.
flowy's position
flowy's tos is intentionally minimal because the underlying legal position is still moving. our current framing:
- personal use: any way you want, including across devices, family sharing, headphones at the gym.
- non-commercial public use: backing track for a personal vlog, podcast background, hobby twitch stream. fine.
- commercial use (monetized content, ads, paid client work): email us and we'll formalize a license. the answer is usually yes, we just want it in writing so the next argument we have isn't about what we agreed to.
- release as your own original music: discouraged for now. flowy is a listening tool, not a rights-clearing service.
the german wrinkle
flowy is operated under german law, which adds an extra layer on top of the copyright basics. the strictest provisions are around consumer rights: the 14-day withdrawal window on digital goods, the right to a refund if the service doesn't match what was described. these protect users, not artists.
the more interesting eu wrinkle is the eu ai act, which took effect in 2025 and requires that ai-generated content be discoverably marked as such. our mp3 downloads include id3 metadata flagging them as ai-generated, in compliance with this. if you re-encode the file the tag survives. if you actively strip metadata, you're acting against the act's intent.
what to ask for in writing
if you're using flowy (or any other ai music tool) in a commercial context where the license matters, ask for:
- an explicit grant of perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive rights to use the tracks for your specific use case.
- a representation that the tool's output is not, to the operator's knowledge, infringing on any third party's rights.
- an indemnification clause if the operator is willing to stand behind that representation.
- a clear statement of attribution requirements (or that none apply).
most ai music vendors will provide (1) and (4) in writing without much friction. (2) and (3) are harder to get and substantially more valuable. if your vendor will give them to you, you're better protected than 95% of buyers in the category.
what to watch in the next 12 months
- the suno and udio litigation outcomes. these are the category-shaping cases.
- whether the us copyright office holds the current “no human author” line or carves out exceptions for ai-assisted (versus purely ai-generated) work.
- how the major streaming platforms (spotify, apple music, youtube) handle ai-generated submissions: labelling, excluding, or accepting.
- industry-wide licensing frameworks emerging, particularly model providers offering “label-cleared” tiers where the training data has explicit permission.
the legal ground will be on firmer footing in 12 months than it is now. for the moment, the rule of thumb i'd give is: low-stakes uses are fine; high-stakes uses need a contract, not a tos. if you're unsure, email me and we'll figure it out together.