Split Sheets for AI Collaborations: Who Gets Paid When AI Helped Write the Song

A split sheet is one of the simplest and most important documents in music. It records who contributed to a song, in what capacity, and what percentage of ownership each contributor holds. It exists precisely so that nobody has to reconstruct an agreement from memory when money arrives — which is the worst possible moment for a disagreement about who owns what.

AI collaborations have made the split sheet harder to write and more important to have.

The AI model does not get a split. But the prompt engineer who shaped the generation might. The producer who transformed generated stems into a finished record almost certainly does. The vocalist who performed the hook has a master and possibly a composition interest. The songwriter who wrote the lyrics on top of a generated melody contributed original protectable expression. The question of who gets what share of a song made with AI assistance is not simpler than a traditional collaboration — it is often more complicated, because the contribution structure is less obvious and the documentation defaults do not exist.

This article explains what a split sheet needs to cover, how AI changes the contributor analysis, and how to build a split agreement that holds up when the track earns income.

What a split sheet covers

A music split sheet documents two separate ownership structures, which are often confused but legally distinct.

**Publishing splits (composition ownership)** cover the underlying song: the melody, lyrics, chord structure, and harmonic arrangement. Publishing income comes from mechanical royalties, performance royalties, sync licensing, and cover recordings. Publishing is registered with performing rights organizations (PROs) like ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, and is administered separately from the recording.

**Master splits (recording ownership)** cover the specific recorded performance: this version of the song, as it was recorded. Master income comes from streaming, physical sales, master sync licenses, and samples. Masters are typically registered with distributors and in rights management systems rather than PROs.

A complete split sheet captures both. Many informal splits only record publishing, leaving master ownership undefined — which becomes a problem when a brand or film wants to license the specific recording rather than just the underlying composition.

How AI changes the contributor analysis

In a traditional collaboration, the contributors are usually clear: the person who wrote the lyrics, the person who wrote the melody, the producer who built the track, the session musicians who played on it. Their contributions are sequential and distinct. The split negotiation is about valuing those contributions relative to each other.

AI generation introduces ambiguity at the composition level. If a generative model produces a melody that appears in the final track, is that melody owned by the creator who prompted it? By the platform that trained and operates the model? By no one, because it is not protectable human authorship?

The answer depends on several factors, none of which are fully settled. But for practical split-sheet purposes, the relevant question is: what human creative contributions shaped the final work, and who made them?

**Prompt engineering** — designing the input that led to a specific generative output — may or may not constitute protectable authorship, depending on how much creative control the prompt gave the creator over the specific result. Highly specific prompts that determined distinctive musical characteristics make a stronger case than generic prompts that produced generic output.

**Selection and arrangement** — choosing which generated stems to use, how to arrange them, what to keep and what to reject — is a human creative act that involves judgment, taste, and musical knowledge. A producer who assembled a track from generated elements by making hundreds of specific choices has a strong case for a meaningful composition contribution.

**Original human-written material** — lyrics composed entirely by a human, melodies composed without AI assistance, chord structures arrived at through human musical reasoning — carry the clearest copyright claim and are the strongest basis for a publishing split.

**Performance** — a vocalist who performed on a track, a guitarist who played a solo, a musician who recorded any element — has a master contribution regardless of how the underlying composition was created.

Platform terms and their effect on splits

Before settling a split, everyone involved needs to understand what the generative platforms used in the production actually permit.

Most major generative AI platforms for music have commercial-use terms that allow creators to release and monetize output, but the specific terms vary and change. Some platforms claim no ownership of outputs. Some retain limited rights for specific uses. Some prohibit certain commercial applications. Some require attribution.

These terms affect the split picture in two ways. First, if a platform's terms are violated — if the work is commercially released in a way the terms prohibit — the entire rights structure is at risk regardless of what the split sheet says. Second, if platform terms require attribution or impose restrictions on commercial use, those restrictions apply to every collaborator's share, not just the creator who used the tool.

Before finalizing any split agreement for an AI-assisted song, every collaborator should read the terms of every platform that contributed to the production and confirm that the intended commercial use is covered.

What to include in a split sheet for an AI collaboration

A split sheet for an AI-assisted track should include everything a traditional split sheet includes, plus additional fields that address the AI contribution specifically.

**Standard fields:** - Track title and any working titles - Date of creation and date the split sheet is signed - Each contributor's legal name, performing name, PRO affiliation, and contact information - Publishing split percentages for each contributor - Master split percentages for each contributor (if different from publishing) - ISRC and ISWC identifiers if assigned - Signature from each contributor

**AI-specific fields:** - Tools and platforms used in the production (name, version or model identifier if available) - Which generative platforms contributed to elements that appear in the final track - Confirmation that commercial-use terms were reviewed and the intended release is covered - A description of each contributor's human creative contribution (not the AI's contribution, but the human decisions made at each stage of the process) - Any restrictions that apply to specific elements based on source material or platform terms

The last two fields matter most when a split is challenged. "I contributed the prompt that generated the main melody" is a weaker claim than "I composed the main melody using the following process, which included prompting, selection from twelve generated versions, transposition, and re-harmonization over the verse." The human creative detail is what determines whether a contribution is protectable and what it is worth.

When to do it

The right time to complete a split sheet is before the track is released, preferably before the final mix is locked. Splits discussed while everyone is still working together, before money is on the table, are usually settled quickly and without friction. Splits discussed after a song becomes successful are a different conversation.

The pressure that money creates can make an undocumented agreement look very different to the parties involved than it did during production. "We agreed you'd get twenty percent" and "we never agreed on a number" are both plausible descriptions of the same conversation, three years later.

Documentation made at the time of creation — while the creative decisions are fresh, while everyone is still collaborating positively, and before any income exists — is almost always accepted as accurate by all parties. Documentation assembled retroactively is a reconstruction, and reconstructions get disputed.

On-chain split records

An on-chain split record does the same job as a signed PDF, with one significant additional property: it is immutable and timestamped in a way that does not depend on any single party maintaining an accurate copy. A signed PDF stored on a collaborator's laptop can be altered, lost, or disputed. A split record registered on-chain at the time of the agreement cannot be retroactively changed without creating a visible on-chain record of the change.

For AI collaborations especially — where the contribution story is complex enough that disputes are more likely — an on-chain split record provides a stronger evidentiary foundation than a document-based record alone.

Suede's IP Registry supports on-chain contributor and split recording as part of the registration process. When a work is registered, contributors and their agreed percentages become part of the permanent rights record attached to the work. When licensing income arrives, the routing logic defined at registration executes automatically, without requiring each collaborator to invoice separately or track payment manually.

The split sheet is not a creative document. It is a legal agreement about value. The best time to complete it is the moment after everyone agrees on the creative contribution — and the most durable place to record it is somewhere that cannot be lost, altered, or conveniently forgotten.