Say the edit locks on Friday and the agency’s legal team has added a line to the clearance form: was AI used in making this track? AI due diligence for sync licensing is how you answer that truthfully. Ask the licensor in writing, check the audio itself, and file both before anything is signed.
That answer travels. It can be written into the license as a representation, then repeated in a delivery package or an insurer’s questionnaire. If it is wrong, the legal and reputational exposure lands on whoever passed it on.
Why the question keeps arriving
The IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) released a second version of its AI Transparency and Disclosure Framework in August 2026, covering AI-generated and AI-assisted audio and synthetic voices. It is voluntary guidance, and AdExchanger reported at the original launch that reviewers are meant to judge AI involvement against materiality thresholds and record the decision in metadata.
A brand cannot document audio it knows nothing about, so the question travels to whoever supplied the music.
Netflix expects production partners to declare any intended use of generative AI and requires written approval when outputs reach final deliverables, according to TV Technology. In radio, an iHeartMedia staff memo reported by RadioInsight said in November 2025, “We don’t play AI music that features synthetic vocalists pretending to be human.”
Insurers may be asking too. Chris Castle of Music Tech Policy writes that errors and omissions (E&O) underwriters have likely built AI-specific clearance procedures into their questionnaires, though he cites no underwriter data.
What a wrong answer puts at risk
The first risk is ownership. The U.S. Copyright Office’s January 2025 report on copyrightability concluded that prompts alone do not make a user the author of AI output, per the Copyright Alliance summary. Wholly AI-generated material is therefore outside U.S. copyright, while a human’s creative selection, arrangement or modification can be protected.
A licensor warranting sole ownership of a wholly AI-generated track may be promising something U.S. law will not back. The Office’s registration guidance says applicants “have a duty to disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content” in a work submitted for registration, so if a licensor says the track is registered, ask what the application disclosed.
The second risk is the voice. Netflix’s guidance says synthetic or digital replicas of talent should not be created without consent. So ask whether any vocal is synthetic or modeled on a real singer, and for the consent record if it is.
AI due diligence for sync licensing, step by step
1. Ask in writing, element by element. Spotify’s AI credits split AI use into lyrics, vocals, instrumentals and production. Ask the licensor for the same four answers, plus the tool and its terms of use.
If the licensor is a label or distributor, ask for the disclosure held on the release. InterSpace Distribution has required an AI disclosure on every new release since 25 May 2026, asking about AI in composition, production and post-production, and the degree and tool involved.
2. Treat a blank as a question. Spotify’s support page says the absence of AI credits “doesn’t mean AI wasn’t used on a song,” and Castle notes that some AI tracks arrive through aliases and shell artist profiles. Silence is not clearance.
3. Check the audio. Run the exact file you plan to license through SEAM. It reads the audio itself, not the metadata or the uploader’s word, so a missing or wrong disclosure cannot change the verdict.
4. Paper it. Put the licensor’s AI statement into the license as a representation, with a duty to tell you if it changes, and file it with the SEAM result and the date. If AI is disclosed, tell the production’s E&O insurer, as Castle’s checklist advises, and have counsel check the warranty and indemnity wording.
Short on time? Do steps 1 and 3 first. A written answer and a dated scan are the two things you cannot reconstruct after the spot airs.
What a SEAM verdict can and cannot tell you
SEAM stands for Sonic Evidence of AI in Music. It is an audio-recognition service from The InterSpace Group that gives each track a verdict, Likely human, Likely AI or Unsure, with a likelihood. It runs in a web console and via API (application programming interface), and the first 1,000 tracks are free.
It is strictly advisory. SEAM never rejects, holds or approves a track by itself, so a person makes the call. Read the verdict against the disclosure:
- No AI disclosed, Likely human: the two agree. Proceed, with the written representation on file.
- No AI disclosed, Unsure: treat the answer as open. Ask for stems or session files before you sign.
- No AI disclosed, Likely AI: pause before you sign the warranty. Ask the licensor how the track was made and for the disclosure in writing.
- AI disclosed, any verdict: ask which elements, which tool and on whose terms. Check ownership, voice consent and the tool’s license.
“Likely AI” is a reason to look closer and ask for disclosure. It is never proof you can publish about someone.
A verdict is a likelihood about the audio, not a guarantee, and not a finding about a person or a breach of contract. Do not repeat it to a client, the press or social media as fact.
What the file protects
Disclosure gives you someone to hold to the answer. The audio check shows you did not take that answer on trust. Together they protect the placement and the person who cleared it: a problem found before signature means swapping a cue, and one found after air means explaining one.
For how SEAM works, read SEAM’s launch explainer for labels and distributors. For the rights background, see our analysis of the chain-of-title problem for music supervisors.
This is general information, not legal advice. Have counsel review your own warranty and indemnity language.
