“Disclose It and Lose, Hide It and Gain”: The “Strange Copyright Royalties” With No Way to Filter Out AI Music

1. Overview

The controversy over manipulated AI music streams erupted after French music streaming service Deezer disclosed that up to 85% of plays of AI-generated songs involved manipulation using automated programs (bots). The term arose from the revelation that programs, rather than people, were repeatedly listening to AI-made songs.

The key issue is how music platforms distribute revenue. Platforms divide revenue according to each song’s share of all plays over a month, so inflating the play count of AI-generated songs with bots reduces the amount that goes to human-made songs by the same measure. In South Korea, allegations surfaced that AI songs had been registered as if they were made by people, generating 16.3 billion won in royalties. Discussions also continued over the Korea Music Copyright Association’s (KOMCA) criteria for registering AI music.

2. Figures Disclosed by Deezer

According to Weekly Kyunghyang, Deezer separately tracks songs made entirely by AI, without human creative input. Its figures show that 10,000 AI-generated songs were uploaded per day on January 1, 2025, accounting for about 10% of all newly uploaded songs. By January 2026, the figure had risen to 60,000 (about 39%), and in June it reached approximately 90,000, passing half of all new uploads for the first time. Weekly Kyunghyang noted that this was a ninefold increase over the year and a half during which KOMCA had deferred registering songs that used AI. Asia Economy also reported that Deezer was receiving an average of 90,000 songs per day that June, and noted that an average of 150,000 songs were newly distributed each day on global music platforms.

The share of actual plays is small compared with the number of songs. AI-generated songs account for just 1–3% of all plays on Deezer. However, Deezer said that up to 85% of plays of AI-generated songs involved bot-driven manipulation. Weekly Kyunghyang said that, although the figures came from a single overseas platform, they offered an indication of the rate of growth.

3. A Precedent in the United States

A case involving bot-driven stream manipulation that led to an admission of guilt emerged in the United States. According to Weekly Kyunghyang, Michael Smith uploaded AI-generated songs to Spotify, Apple Music, and other services, then repeatedly played them using thousands of bot accounts, collecting more than $8 million. In March 2026, he admitted guilt to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Weekly Kyunghyang did not directly connect the Deezer and Smith cases.

Notably, the basis for prosecution in the United States was not the AI-generated songs themselves, but the manipulation of play counts using bots. Weekly Kyunghyang argued that, without criteria for identifying songs automatically generated by AI, there is no way to filter out the share taken by such songs unless a separate offense, such as stream manipulation, is uncovered.

4. Controversy Over 16.3 Billion Won in Royalties in South Korea

In South Korea, a similar problem arose not with platform plays, but at the stage of registering works with a copyright trust. In October 2025, KOMCA reported four people on suspicion of fraud and obstruction of business after they registered large numbers of songs in a short period and received royalties. One of them registered about 630 songs between July 2023 and March 2025. The four received 16.3 billion won in royalties between January 2024 and July 2025, an average of about 860 million won per month. They did not report using AI, because the only way to determine whether AI had been used in a song was through voluntary disclosure by the creator.

However, in July 2026, investigators decided not to refer the case for prosecution, citing insufficient evidence. The key question was whether AI had created the registered songs in their entirety or whether people had participated in the composition process. Investigators found insufficient evidence to prove that the works had been generated simply by entering prompts. As a result, it was also difficult to establish fraud on the grounds that the songs had been registered deceptively as human-made. A YouTube video by Media Cooperative Kookmin TV described the case as one in which 16.3 billion won had been distributed to four members over 18 months, KOMCA had filed a complaint, and the case had then been closed.

The case highlighted the paradox that creators who reported their work truthfully were at a disadvantage. Since March 2025, KOMCA had accepted works for trust registration only if their creators certified that they had not used AI. It deferred registration of entire works if creators disclosed any AI use, even if AI had been used only as an auxiliary tool. Composer Nam Ki-sang, who wrote songs for Girl’s Day, said on a YouTube channel that he could not register his own work because he had used AI in the arrangement. This was why Weekly Kyunghyang’s headline said, “Disclose it and get zero; four who hid it got 16.3 billion.” In its September 28 exclusive report, Chosun Ilbo also ran a headline saying that AI music was reaching the top of YouTube and Melon charts, while creators were unable to register the works for copyright and were resorting to registering them improperly as “human-created.”

5. Implementation and Withdrawal of KOMCA’s Criteria

Amid this criticism, KOMCA implemented criteria for reporting and registering music involving AI on August 3. According to edaily, works could be registered even if AI had been used as an auxiliary tool, provided the creator had led the work’s composition, revision, or arrangement. Music generated by AI solely from prompts would not be recognized as a copyrighted work. Applicants had to report and certify which parts used AI, which tools they used, and what work they had done themselves. If it was confirmed that a work generated by AI without human contribution had been registered, KOMCA could suspend payments, recover payments, or terminate the trust agreement. It also planned to seek contractual penalties of up to three times the amount improperly received in cases of intent or gross negligence. The criteria did not divide contributions between humans and AI using numerical figures such as 51%, on the grounds that objective measurement of those proportions was difficult with current technology.

However, criticism arose that the issue had not been sufficiently discussed in public. After the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism stated in an official letter that discussion across the cultural and arts sectors was needed, KOMCA withdrew the rules on August 25, just 22 days after their implementation. Chairman Lee Si-ha said that criteria for AI music should be developed as national standards after sufficient discussion within the cultural sector. A forum was held at the National Assembly on September 22, where participants broadly agreed on reviewing contributions by section, voluntary disclosure, and using work records as evidence of human contribution. However, no conclusion was reached on whether works composed by humans but arranged with AI should actually be registered, or how royalties should be divided.

6. Reversal of the Decision to Lift the Payment Suspension

Separately from discussions over the criteria, protests from those facing allegations continued. According to Top Star News, music production company Creatable said KOMCA had suspended royalty payments after raising suspicions in October 2025 that some of its registered songs had been made with AI and filing complaints against those involved. Creatable said it had submitted the composers’ work records and project files to KOMCA and investigators, and that the Seoul Songpa Police Station had decided on June 30 not to refer the case for prosecution (finding no charges).

In an email on September 23, KOMCA’s Data Team 1 said there had been no developments for more than three months since the decision not to refer the case, and notified the company that the payment suspension would be lifted effective September 30. But the day before, on the 29th, KOMCA’s board of directors voted to classify the matter as “requiring further review and investigation,” and the lifting of the suspension was put on hold again. KOMCA reportedly did not explain what the additional investigation would involve, how it would be conducted, or how long it would take. Creatable CEO Nam Dong-woo agreed that AI music needed to be filtered out, but asked, “Then what more are creators supposed to do to prove it?” The case reported by Top Star News involved a complaint and police report filed around the same time as the October 2025 case involving the four people covered by Weekly Kyunghyang. However, neither report states whether they were the same case, and the decisions not to refer the cases for prosecution came at different times: June 30 and July.

7. Authenticity Debate

The central questions are how much AI songs and bot-driven stream manipulation are actually taking away from human creators, and whether the domestic cases under suspicion really involved mass production using AI. Deezer’s 85% figure and the domestic 16.3 billion won case concern different aspects of the issue, and no evidence directly linking the two has been identified in the reporting.

7.1. The View That This Is a Serious Problem

This side sees the system itself as vulnerable to manipulation. Since revenue is distributed according to each song’s share of total plays, every stream added by bots can take money away from human-made songs. Michael Smith’s admission of guilt after collecting more than $8 million through bot accounts in the United States is cited as a real case in which the method generated substantial revenue.

They argue that the situation in South Korea is no different. One person registered about 630 songs, and the four received an average of 860 million won per month, yet none of the four reported using AI. The accounts shared by Kim Chan-wook, head of the Korea Music Publishers Association, of composers answering “Yes” when asked whether they used AI, but “No” when asked whether they used it on the song in question, illustrate the weaknesses of a system reliant solely on voluntary disclosure. The Board of Audit and Inspection’s March finding that copyright management organizations collect and distribute royalties without procedures to verify AI use is also part of the same picture. This side argues that if the loophole is left unaddressed, only those who disclose their use truthfully will lose out.

7.2. The View That It Is Too Early to Draw Conclusions

The other side argues that both the figures and the facts of the cases need closer examination. First, AI-generated songs account for only 1–3% of all plays on Deezer, and 85% is a “maximum” figure based on Deezer’s own data. Weekly Kyunghyang also noted that the figures came from just one overseas platform. They argue that these numbers alone cannot show how much income human creators have lost.

The domestic case is even more contentious. Investigators decided not to refer it for prosecution, finding insufficient evidence to prove that the songs had been made simply by entering prompts into AI. Creatable claims that its composers submitted work records and project files documenting their own work, and asks what more they are expected to provide to prove their case when payments are still being blocked. KOMCA itself explained that there is still no credible technology anywhere in the world that can accurately determine whether AI was used. Creatable argues that although an institution may suspect a work was made with AI, it also has a responsibility to explain the objective grounds for its suspicions.

Ultimately, the scale of bot-driven stream manipulation and whether the four people’s songs in South Korea were AI-generated remain unconfirmed. KOMCA said it was working to introduce AI music identification technology (detection software), but that it would not make a definitive judgment based solely on its results.

8. Trivia

• Weekly Kyunghyang’s article noted that an AI music playlist uploaded to YouTube had the phrase “no royalties” in its video title.
• The representative image for the relevant Top Star News article was labeled “Image generated by AI.”
• This was not the first time KOMCA had suspended royalty payments over a dispute. It had also suspended payments during the 2023 dispute over Fifty Fifty’s “Cupid,” citing a criminal complaint filed by the group’s agency.