Note to CO Examples for AI-Assisted Music: What to Write in the USCO Standard Application

When you file through the eCO system, the Standard Application includes an optional free-text field labeled "Note to Copyright Office." For most traditional works, applicants leave it blank. For AI-assisted music, leaving it blank is a mistake.

The Note to CO serves three functions. First, it explains the relationship between the human-authored elements (Author Created) and the AI-generated elements (Material Excluded). Second, it provides enough context for the examiner to evaluate whether the human contribution meets the originality threshold established in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Third, it preempts questions that would otherwise result in correspondence — delays that can add months to registration.

The January 2025 Part 2 report reinforced the 2023 guidance, reaffirming that the Office evaluates AI-assisted works on a case-by-case basis. Your Note to CO is the primary vehicle for making your case.

The Office does not prescribe a specific format, but 2023 guidance and examination practices reveal consistent expectations. Identify the AI tool by name — write "Suno v3.5" or "Udio," not "AI software" generically. Describe what the AI generated with specificity. Describe what the human authored, aligning with your Author Created field. Explain the creative relationship — if you substantially reworked AI output, describe the nature and extent of the modifications.

Template 1: Suno-Generated Instrumental with Human Lyrics. "The lyrics in this work were independently authored by the applicant without the use of any AI tools. The lyrics were written in [describe medium] prior to any use of AI generation software. The instrumental elements — including melody, harmony, rhythm, and production — were generated using Suno. The applicant provided a text prompt describing the desired genre and mood but did not control the specific musical output at the note, chord, or arrangement level. This application claims copyright only in the original lyrics as a literary work. All AI-generated instrumental elements are excluded."

Template 2: AI-Generated Melody with Human Arrangement and Performance. "The applicant used [AI Tool Name] to generate an initial melodic and harmonic sketch. The applicant then substantially reworked this material: (1) the melody was modified by altering [describe changes]; (2) the harmonic structure was revised by [describe changes]; (3) the arrangement was entirely determined by the applicant; (4) all performances were recorded by the applicant on [instruments]. The applicant claims copyright in the musical composition as modified and arranged, and in the sound recording as performed and produced. The initial AI-generated sketch is excluded."

Template 3: AI Used Only for Production/Mastering. "All musical composition and all performances in this work were authored and performed entirely by the applicant. AI-assisted tools were used solely in the audio engineering phase for [describe — e.g., dynamic equalization, mastering, noise reduction]. These tools processed the applicant's existing sound recording but did not generate any musical content, melodic material, or arrangement decisions. The applicant believes no limitation of claim is necessary, as the AI tools functioned as production utilities rather than generative content creators."

Template 4: Substantially Reworked AI Demo. "The applicant initially used [AI Tool Name] to generate a demo recording. The applicant then undertook substantial creative modifications: (1) Lyrics — approximately [percentage] of AI-generated lyrics were replaced with independently authored text; (2) Melody — the verse melody was restructured by [describe]; (3) Arrangement — the applicant restructured the form and added [new elements]; (4) Performance — the applicant re-recorded vocals and [instruments]. The applicant claims copyright in the composition and sound recording as modified. The original AI-generated demo elements that were replaced are excluded."

Template 5: Multiple AI Tools Across Different Elements. "This work involved the use of multiple AI tools at different stages. Lyrics: the applicant used [AI Tool] for initial concepts and rhyme suggestions, then independently wrote all final lyrics — the deposited lyrics are entirely human-authored. Melody and Harmony: the applicant used [AI Tool] to generate a chord progression, then authored the melody independently on [instrument] — the AI-generated chord progression is excluded. Arrangement, Production, and Performance: all arrangement decisions, instrumental performances, and vocal performances were by the applicant. The applicant claims the original melody, lyrics, arrangement, and sound recording. The AI-generated chord progression is excluded."

These patterns most frequently generate a letter from an examiner — adding weeks or months to your timeline.

RightsDocket's claim preparation wizard walks through a structured series of questions about your creative workflow, then generates scenario-specific Note to CO text tailored to your filing. The system maps inputs across 56+ decision nodes to produce claim language that aligns with USCO expectations as an integrated set — Author Created, Material Excluded, and Note to CO working together.

This matters because the three fields must tell a coherent, non-contradictory story. A Note to CO that conflicts with your other entries creates the exact kind of inconsistency that triggers correspondence.