PRS for Music treats AI training as data mining, not free use

The audio task

A UK songwriter or composer affiliated with PRS for Music wants a straight answer to two questions: can an AI company legally use their catalogue to train a model without asking, and what happens if the songwriter wants to register a track that used an AI tool somewhere in its creation. PRS for Music, the UK's collecting society for performing and mechanical rights, has published its own answer on its own site rather than leaving members to guess.

What the documents show

In a 29 January 2024 announcement, PRS for Music's Members' Council set out principles built around protection of human creativity: authorisation as copyright's central pillar, meaning rightsholders should always decide whether their works are used by AI systems, since 'music is not data'; auditability and transparency for AI-generated content; and a commitment to pursue an enforceable regulatory framework for AI companies. Its living artificial intelligence guidance page, as retrieved on 16 September 2026, adds that PRS surveyed members on AI in 2023 and again in September 2025, that concern about AI-generated music competing with human-created work rose over that period, and that in March 2026 the UK government confirmed it would not proceed with a proposed copyright exception for AI training. The same page states the PRS Members' Council has developed guidance for registering works made with AI assistance.

Rights status

PRS for Music states its own position, not UK law. It opposes an AI-training exception to copyright and treats authorisation as the default rule under existing law, but the guidance page itself records that the UK government's next-phase work on digital replicas, labelling and creator transparency is still in progress. PRS does not claim UK law currently guarantees compensation for AI training uses; it states what it is campaigning for.

What to check before you use it

This is an editorial checklist. Before assuming a work is protected, a PRS member should check the current registration guidance for AI-assisted works directly rather than relying on a summary, since the guidance is described as evolving. Anyone licensing an AI tool that touches PRS-registered catalogue should also check whether that vendor's own documentation states how it sourced training material, since PRS's principles describe an aspiration for licensing, not a verified fact about any specific tool.

• Does my AI-assisted track meet PRS's current registration criteria for works using AI tools?
• Has the UK government's four-area AI and copyright work programme changed since this guidance was last updated?
• Does the AI vendor I use disclose training-data sourcing in a way PRS's transparency principle would recognise?

PRS for Music's position gives members a clear campaigning stance, but its own page treats UK policy as unsettled, which is a distinction worth preserving when a vendor implies the question is already closed.