# Technical, Musical, and Legal Aspects of an AI-Aided Algorithmic Music Production System
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Legal Aspects  
First, an explanation should be made that the recordings created by the system in question, from a legal point of view, consist of two components. The first one is a musical composition, which for the purpose of this paper can be described as notes. The second component is the musical recording, i.e., the sound layer. If the musical composition meets the requirements of the Copyright and Related Rights Act [43], it can be called a piece of  
Figure 12: Evaluation of human-created and system-generated recordings by listener votes.  
work. In turn, the first recording of a work or other acoustic phenomena is granted the status of a phonogram.  
In the case of the phonogram, the issue is less problematic, as the Act [44] clearly indicates that the phonogram, which the producer holds the rights to, is the first recording of both a piece of work within the meaning of the Act and another acoustic phenomenon (it refers to all the recorded performance-related sounds, which may vary depending on a type of work). Therefore, the produced recording will receive copyright protection, which will be granted to its producer--the owner of the software.  
The issue becomes more complicated when one attempts to determine the authorship of AI works. Currently, the doctrine generally accepts that AI by itself cannot be considered a creator within the meaning of the Copyright Law [45]. Similarly, as in the case of creations by animals (for example, the case of a picture taken by a monkey) [46], concepts suggesting to allow granting authorship to entities other than human beings were rejected.  
While the generally held view is that only a human being can be regarded as a creator--and hence, only a product of human activity can be called a piece of work--several concepts [47] have been formulated with regard to granting the status of works for creations generated by artificial intelligence as well as assigning their authorship. In the opinion of the author of this paper, the most important concepts include the following: (1) granting authorship of a work to the creator of the software with the use of which that work was created, (2) granting authorship of a work to the \"trainer\" (a person who feeds the software data for machine learning), (3) granting authorship of a work to the owner of the software (the software such as the system for automatic music production presented in this manuscript) with the use of which that work was created, and (4) granting authorship to the software operator, who can determine the parameters of a future work.  
The objective of this paper is not to solve the problem in question but to signal its existence. Regarding the concepts presented above, it seems that none of them would be fully adequate.  
To conclude, in order to avoid doubts as to the copyright protection of works created by artificial intelligence, which may discourage prospective investors in such solutions, it is necessary for legislators to intervene and regulate these issues at the European and national level.  
In the authors' opinion, it is worth considering a new concept, apart from those mentioned above, of a new category of related rights (to the works of artificial intelligence), which would be granted to the owner of an AI mechanism, and which in terms of protection and property rights would be equal to the right of the author of a work.