The global music scene has recently witnessed an intriguing surge in AI-generated remixes, dramatically showcased by the Afro-soul rendition of Stromae’s French hit “Papaoutai.” Released in December 2025, this version quickly gained immense popularity, peaking globally in January 2026, and charting at #168 on Global Spotify before climbing to #2 on the Billboard World Digital Song Sales chart. Unknown to many, this captivating track featured an AI voice model trained on the voice of Congolese-born artiste Arsène Mukendi, known for his soulful, African-inflected vocal texture, which was projected onto Stromae’s 2013 melody using retrieval-based voice conversion technology. The authenticity was further enhanced by cinematic lip-sync videos featuring Mukendi, leading millions to believe it was a studio cover.

This phenomenon is not isolated. In 2025, an unauthorized AI-generated choir version of Nigerian artiste Fave’s song “Intentions,” created by Urban Chords, also went viral on TikTok. In a unique turn, Fave opted to record over the AI arrangement, releasing it as an official remix. While this example sets a precedent for hybrid collaboration, it also highlights the complexities and legal challenges AI derivatives pose, particularly for African artistes. Music and media counsel Ugwu Chikezirim has observed firsthand cases where entities like Urban Chords manipulated and uploaded clients’ lyrics to digital platforms without authorization. Pursuing legal action becomes complicated when the identity of the individual behind the account is unknown, often necessitating court orders to compel platforms to disclose identifying information.

Most AI-generated songs leverage Generative AI models such as Suno and Udio, which are trained on vast datasets of existing music. These models do not simply copy audio; instead, they employ neural networks to predict and synthesize elements like melody, harmony, lyrics, and vocals based on textual prompts, akin to ChatGPT for sound. African AI remixes predominantly use two methods: retrieval-based voice conversion, which applies an artiste’s voice model to an existing vocal, or stem separation, which extracts vocals from a mastered track to allow for re-harmonization or re-beating. As Melody Nehemiah, founder of Songdis, explains, these AI versions are inherently dependent on the original copyrighted material, using its lyrics, composition, and message.

The core ethical dilemma revolves around the reliance on copyrighted material. AI-generated remixes often reuse existing lyrics, melodies, or compositions, blurring the lines between new creations and sampling. While sampling is an established practice with clear rules for royalty distribution, AI remixes frequently lack proper clearance. Music copyright is typically divided into sound recording rights (performance and recording) and composition rights (lyrics and songwriting). Commercial uses, such as for films or advertisements, require explicit permission from the original rights holder. Without such clearance, AI remix creators risk legal action and cannot legally monetize their works beyond basic streams. The commercial status of the “Papaoutai” remix, regarding Stromae's permission, remains publicly unclear.

Furthermore, the promise of ownership for users of AI music platforms is often misleading. Many platforms’ terms and conditions state that anything generated belongs to the platform, not the user. Although platforms like Suno have faced lawsuits from rights holders, some now claim ownership of all music generated on their systems, restricting users from free monetization or distribution. Even for paid users, ownership may be reduced to a mere license. The US Copyright Office has clarified that copyright protection hinges on human contribution; users can claim copyright over elements they personally created, such as original lyrics, but not over entirely AI-generated vocals or instrumentals lacking meaningful human input. This has led many creators to label their work as “AI-assisted” rather than “AI-generated” to ensure clearer authorship claims.

Globally, the legal landscape for AI copyright is still nascent, with no uniform standards or landmark music-specific precedents. Nigeria, like many other African countries, relies on its existing copyright framework (the Copyright Act 2022) as regulators, even in jurisdictions like the United States, continue to define clear boundaries. The US Copyright Office’s position, following cases involving AI-generated songs replicating voices like Drake and The Weeknd, emphasizes human authorship as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The inherent challenge for AI systems trained on existing datasets lies in establishing the originality of new works and clearly linking authorship to a human creator.

Beyond financial rights, moral rights are also at stake. Entertainment lawyer Oluwadamilola Salako emphasizes that the motive and context of AI generative works matter. Using a licensed song for a purpose different from its original intent, such as using a worship song in an inappropriate context, could violate the creator’s moral rights. The approach should focus on opportunities AI presents, provided alterations do not destroy or diminish the original work.

The financial prospects for purely AI-based artists are often uncertain. Bukar Mamadu, an AI artiste, noted significantly low streaming revenues even for songs with tens of thousands of streams. Streaming payouts vary by country and are generally low. Platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, and Deezer have introduced tiered royalty rates: fully human-made content receives the standard rate ($0.003 to $0.005 per stream), AI-assisted content receives about 50% less, and fully AI-generated content receives minimal to zero payouts. This means earning substantial income requires millions, if not billions, of streams, making long-term financial sustainability for artists without live performances, brand identity, or institutional backing precarious.

Streaming platforms are actively responding to these challenges. New contractual agreements increasingly include AI clauses, requiring artists to disclose AI tool usage to prevent infringement, with penalties for non-compliance. Following legal action by major labels like Universal Music Group (UMG), Sony, and Warner Music Group (WMG) against platforms like Suno and Udio for using their catalogues without compensation, preliminary licensing agreements have been reached. These agreements often involve licensing fees or royalty splits, such as WMG’s system allowing artists to