Does copyright arise in an AI-assisted song that reached No. 1 on Korea’s Melon chart?

Sangwook Je, Partner · Published 12 November 2026

Last verified 13 November 2026

Conclusions by element at a glance

The team says a human wrote the lyrics, while AI did the composition and singing

“꿈꾸던 어른이 되었나요?” is a single released on 23 June 2026. The distributor is OGQ 블렌딩 and the agency is 글로리웨이브 사운드. [4] It was reported to have reached No. 2 on the Melon TOP100 on 29 October 2026 and then No. 1 as of 5 p.m. on 13 November 2026, the first time an AI-assisted song has topped the chart. [6][17]

“머무르” is not a real singer but a project of the songwriting team “글로리웨이브”. In an interview, the team said the song was made by entering commands into Suno, and that “the lyrics were written directly by humans, but the basic composition and the singing were done by AI”. [5] The album introduction on Melon states that the vocals were generated with Suno AI technology and that the artist personally handled the planning, the lyrics and the overall producing direction. [4] The credits in Melon’s song information list only “Lyrics: 머무르”; no composer or arranger is listed. [4]

The team said they revised the song many times through commands and layered in additional sources. They also said they sometimes sing a melody themselves or change the structure and then feed it back into the AI, but that was a description of their working method in general. Whether that method was used for this song has not been disclosed. [5]

Copyright arises only in the parts where a human made a creative contribution

The Korean Copyright Act defines a work as “a creative production that expresses human thoughts or emotions” (Art. 2(1)). [1] The registration guide calls a result without human creative contribution a “GAI output” and treats it as not a work, and therefore not registrable. The guide identifies three kinds of human contribution. [2]

• The user entered their own work as a prompt, and the creativity of that work appears in the result
• The “additional work” of modifying, adding to or cutting the output is creative
• The selection and arrangement or composition of outputs is creative

Entering prompts alone is not enough. For music, the guide says that a creative contribution “going beyond merely entering prompts into GAI” is needed (Q6). [2] In our view, regenerating a song repeatedly through commands is likely to stay within that category.

Lyrics written by a human are protected, and only the lyrics

Two examples in the guide shed light on this song. [2]

• Example 1: in a comic where a human wrote the text and GAI made the drawings, the comic can be registered as a literary work, and the registration takes effect only for the text.
• Example 2: where a human composed the music and GAI wrote the lyrics, it can be registered as a musical work, and the registration takes effect only for the composition.

This song is Example 2 in reverse: a human wrote the lyrics and AI did the composition. In our view, the lyrics are therefore protected as a literary work, and that protection covers the lyrics but not the melody. The threshold of creativity is not high, either. The Supreme Court precedent cited in the guide does not require a high standard, only “minimal creativity” (Q4). [2]

There is one premise. That a human wrote the lyrics is the team’s own account. [5] If the lyrics were also made by AI and only trivially edited, they would be hard to protect. Knowingly registering a GAI output as one’s own work may be punished as a false registration (Q1). [2]

A melody generated by Suno is not protected

The guide says that “the output itself, such as pictures, music or novels generated by GAI”, cannot be registered (Q1). [2] The melody and arrangement Suno generated for this song fall into that category.

What can be protected is what a human added. If a human sang a melody and fed it in, and that melody remains recognisable in the result, or if a human added or edited instrumental parts or arrangement, those parts may be protected. [2] What was actually done for this song, however, has not been made public. The team itself said that the law “should move toward distinguishing the parts humans created from the parts generated by AI and recognising copyright in the human-created parts”. [5]

The door to a compilation work is narrow

According to the guide, where the selection, arrangement or composition of GAI outputs is creative, the result can be registered as a compilation work (Example 5). [2] Two conditions narrow that path.

• First, it must be a “compilation”, meaning a collection of materials. An edit that anyone would make the same or similarly, or a mechanical listing, does not qualify (Q3). [2] A song is usually treated as a single musical work. We have found no Korean precedent treating the segments of one song as the materials of a compilation work.
• Even if recognised, only the selection, arrangement or composition of the materials is protected. The guide states that even when a work is protected as a compilation, “the GAI outputs that constitute individual materials are not protected” (Q8). [2]

If a single result was picked from Suno and used as it was, in our view there was no range of choice and it is hard to see a compilation work. If segments from several results were chosen and joined, there is room to argue, but protection reaches only that combination. If someone took only the chorus melody, a compilation right would hardly stop it. Which method was used for this song has not been confirmed.

AI vocals carry no performer’s rights; the recording is an open question

The Copyright Act defines a performer as a “person” who gives a performance, such as singing (Art. 2(4)). [1] In our view, AI vocals that no human sang give rise to no performer’s rights.

The sound recording is different. A phonogram is sound fixed in a tangible medium (Art. 2(5)), and a phonogram producer is the person who plans and takes overall responsibility for first producing it (Art. 2(6)). [1] The provisions do not require that the fixed sound be a work. The guide also says that if a human sings a song composed and written by GAI and makes a recording of it, the recording can be registered under neighbouring rights as a phonogram (Example 6). [2]

Example 6, however, includes a human singer. The guide does not say whether the same conclusion holds where AI made the entire sound. There is no case law or official interpretation either. The team says it receives revenue from the recording through its distributor; that is settlement under contract and does not mean the legal right has been established. [5]

KOMCA registration is separate from whether copyright exists

Copyright arises upon creation and requires no formality such as registration (Copyright Act, Art. 10(2)). Registration does not turn something that is not a work into a work. [3] KOMCA registration is a channel for collecting and distributing royalties.

According to reports, this song was not entrusted to KOMCA, so it receives no lyrics or composition royalties. Melon has said that it holds the copyright share of AI songs’ revenue as “unsettled funds”. [5] KOMCA’s handling of AI music has changed several times.

Reports cited an official letter from the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism recommending public deliberation, and criticism in the National Assembly, as the background to the withdrawal. [9] KOMCA said the withdrawal does not mean it accepts 100% AI-generated works. [9]

The United States and China also look at the human share

In Thaler, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held on 18 March 2025 that the Copyright Act requires a human author, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari on 2 March 2026. [11] In its January 2025 report, the U.S. Copyright Office concluded that, given currently available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient control. [12] For “Zarya of the Dawn”, a comic made with AI images, the images were excluded from registration, and only the human-written text and the selection and arrangement of images and text remained registered. [13]

In 2023, the Beijing Internet Court in China recognised a creative contribution in prompt work and held an AI image to be a work. [2] The breadth of the standard differs by country, but each asks what the human did.

What remains open

• Whether this song has been registered for copyright has not been confirmed. Registration is not a requirement for the right to arise, so copyright in the lyrics exists even without registration. [3]
• How many times the song was generated in Suno, whether segments of several results were joined, and whether a human fed in a melody have not been disclosed.
• Which Suno plan was used has not been confirmed. Under the current terms (effective 3 September 2026), Suno assigns its rights in outputs to users on paid plans, while free-plan outputs may be used only for non-commercial purposes. We could not confirm the terms in force at the time of release. [14]
• Whether a phonogram producer’s right arises in a recording whose entire sound was made by AI has no case law or official interpretation. KOMCA has said it will prepare a new standard, but no date has been set. [9]

What to do if you make songs with AI

• Record which parts, among lyrics, melody and arrangement, a human made. The guide advises describing the GAI output parts and the human-created parts separately in a registration application to clarify the scope of protection. [2]
• Keep materials that show the process, such as drafts, project files and version histories. The guide says the chance of registration rises when the human creative contribution can be proven concretely, and recommends recording the generation and creation process, for example on video (Q6). [2]
• If you want to protect a melody, feed in a melody a human made, or edit the result yourself. Prompts and regeneration alone are hard to protect. [2]
• Do not register AI-made parts as your own creation. False registration may be punished. [2]
• Check the AI service’s terms on ownership of outputs and commercial use. Suno makes no warranty that copyright will vest in any output. [14]
• Please confirm the assessment of an individual case with a representative.

FAQ

1. Whose permission is needed to cover this song or use its lyrics in a video?

In our view, the lyrics are a protected work. KOMCA usually manages lyrics and composition rights, but this song was reportedly not entrusted to KOMCA. [5] Using the lyrics therefore requires permission directly from the lyricist’s side. Using the original recording itself may raise separate issues of rights in the recording and distribution contracts.

2. Can someone be stopped from making a similar melody separately with Suno?

If the melody is a pure Suno output, in our view it is hard to stop someone on that basis. [2] Human-made parts may be mixed in, however, and their extent cannot be seen from outside, so one cannot conclude that anyone may freely use the melody. Copying the lyrics as they are would infringe the copyright in the lyrics.

3. Since the song is not registered with KOMCA, does it have no copyright?

No. Copyright arises upon creation and requires neither registration nor entrustment (Copyright Act, Art. 10(2)). [3] KOMCA registration is only a channel for collecting and distributing royalties.

4. Must a song made with AI be labelled as such?

The labelling duty in Art. 31 of Korea’s AI Basic Act, in force since 22 January 2026, falls on “AI business operators”. [15] The Ministry of Science and ICT was reported to have explained that creators who use AI as a tool are “users” and not directly subject to it. [16] We have not found an explicit government interpretation for music.

How DEFINE IP Law Firm handles this

When DEFINE IP Law Firm reviews a work made with generative AI, we first separate the human-made parts from the AI-made parts and check whether there are work records that can prove the human contribution. We then decide whether to protect it through copyright registration, trademarks or contracts. For questions about protecting rights in AI-assisted content in Korea, please write to contact@defineip.kr.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Please consult a professional about your specific situation.

Sources

1. Copyright Act (저작권법), Art. 2(1), (4), (5) and (6). https://www.law.go.kr/법령/저작권법 (verified 13 November 2026)
2. Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and Korea Copyright Commission, “생성형 인공지능 활용 저작물의 저작권 등록 안내서” (Guide to Copyright Registration of Works Using Generative AI), June 2025. p. 12 (classification of GAI results), p. 15 (creativity of inputs), p. 17 (process records, trivial changes), p. 19 (positions of other countries), pp. 22–23 (effect of registration, Examples 1–7), pp. 40–42 (Q1–Q8) (verified 13 November 2026)
3. Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and Korea Copyright Commission, “생성형 AI 저작권 안내서” (Generative AI Copyright Guide), December 2023. p. 40 (KOMCA’s July 2022 suspension of royalties), p. 41 (no formalities, Copyright Act Art. 10(2)) (verified 13 November 2026)
4. Melon, song and album information for “꿈꾸던 어른이 되었나요?”. https://www.melon.com/song/detail.htm?songId=602290711 (verified 13 November 2026)
5. Kyunghyang Shinmun (경향신문), interview with the 머무르 production team, 16 October 2026. https://www.khan.co.kr/article/202610160900001 (verified 13 November 2026)
6. KMJ, report on No. 2 on the Melon TOP100, 30 October 2026. https://www.kmjournal.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=14034 (verified 13 November 2026)
7. Weekly Kyunghyang (주간경향), article on KOMCA’s handling of AI songs, 13 October 2026. https://weekly.khan.co.kr/article/202610130600011 (verified 13 November 2026)
8. Money Today (머니투데이), article on KOMCA’s adoption of a standard for AI-assisted songs, 4 August 2026. https://www.mt.co.kr/culture/2026/08/04/2026080413530953196 (verified 13 November 2026)
9. Kyunghyang Shinmun (경향신문), article on the withdrawal of KOMCA’s standard, 25 August 2026. https://www.khan.co.kr/article/202608251836001/ · Mediapen (미디어펜) https://www.mediapen.com/news/view/1118814 (verified 13 November 2026)
10. Asia Business Daily (아시아경제), article on KOMCA withdrawing its standard “after 22 days”, 31 August 2026. https://view.asiae.co.kr/article/2026083116360854659 (verified 13 November 2026)
11. Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025), cert. denied, No. 25-449 (Mar. 2, 2026). Goodwin · Baker Donelson (verified 13 November 2026)
12. U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability, 29 January 2025. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ (verified 13 November 2026)
13. U.S. Copyright Office, decision on Zarya of the Dawn, 21 February 2023. https://www.copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf (verified 13 November 2026)
14. Suno, Terms of Service (effective 3 September 2026). https://suno.com/terms (verified 13 November 2026)
15. Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and the Establishment of Trust (인공지능 발전과 신뢰 기반 조성 등에 관한 기본법), Art. 31. https://casenote.kr/법령/인공지능_발전과_신뢰_기반_조성_등에_관한_기본법/제31조 (verified 13 November 2026)
16. Newsis (뉴시스), article on the AI Basic Act taking effect, 22 January 2026. https://www.newsis.com/view/NISX20260121_0003485509 (verified 13 November 2026)
17. Kyunghyang Shinmun, report on the first AI-assisted song to top the Melon TOP100, 13 November 2026. https://www.khan.co.kr/article/202611131817001 (verified 13 November 2026)