Photo: iStockphoto.com/ipopba
TONO has written a new post on Ballade.no to clarify some facts about TONO's AI policy. Read it here.
/ 16/01/2026 / Willy MartinsenAnders Odden asks several questions to TONO in a post in BalladWe see that it is necessary to clarify certain facts.
Odden describes a process where a demo is uploaded to Suno and further worked on there. “Isn’t this selection, management and curation a ‘human creative effort’?” he asks TONO.
Yes, that's exactly what it is. Such a process means that there is an independent human creative effort behind the music. AI is a tool in this context. This is AI-assisted music creation. The use of artificial intelligence therefore does not disqualify a music creator from registering works in TONO.
Music and/or lyrics that are 100 percent AI-generated, as opposed to assisted, do not have copyright under the law. Therefore, they cannot be registered in TONO. We only manage copyrighted music.
The Vestavind example is therefore quite good. Their songs are registered in TONO because they have assumed that all or part of the song is part of a human creative effort. Their songs are therefore copyrighted, and must therefore be licensed and paid for when used.
TONO has established an AI policy for how members can register works that use generative AI as a tool. This AI policy may be updated and expanded. AI is still a relatively new phenomenon, and is rapidly evolving.
Odden asks, “When an “AI song” becomes a hit on radio or streaming services, TONO collects money from the broadcaster. If TONO believes that “no human owns the work,” where does this money go?”
In cases where TONO has a general license with, for example, a broadcaster, the license covers the use of music that TONO manages. The income is distributed to the rights holders of the performed works that TONO represents. If music without copyright is performed and is not managed by TONO, it falls outside our management.
Most AI services have built their services on rights violations, through training without a license. Here we are actively working to establish clearer legal frameworks, both here at home and in the EU. The DSM directive has not yet been implemented into Norwegian law, and we are also waiting for a verdict in the German “TONO” (GEMA) case against Suno.
TONO, Koda (Denmark), Teosto (Finland), Stef (Iceland) and Stim (Sweden) have jointly established licensing principles, in which we identify that licensing should take place in three parts of the AI value chain: During training, making available and use.
This means that all three of these elements will be paid for, and the income will form the basis for payments. But until a practice has been established, internationally and in Norway, it is too early to say what this will look like precisely.
TONO's practice, as described in our settlement principles, is that money TONO collects for a work shall be paid to the rights holders in the work.