RightsDocketRightsDocket

The Human-Authorship Evidence Platform for AI-assisted music

You did the human work. Put it on the recordwithRightsDocket

Made a track with Suno, ElevenLabs, or another AI tool? RightsDocket builds a signed record of what a human contributed and how AI was used, with trusted timestamp evidence attached when a timestamped artifact is present — the human-authorship evidence copyright offices, digital platforms, and your next deal ask to see. It does not decide ownership for you; it gives you the verifiable record to stand behind, while others are still scrambling.

Start Free Rights Review →View Sample Receipt

One free review. Two evidence paths:

Existing track → Rights ReceiptStill creating or starting fresh → Human Proof Pack

How the Free Rights Review works

01
About the track
02
What humans contributed
03
Where it is going
Rights Receipt·Signed existing-track record
Review status: Needs review

Track · AI-assisted jingle

Morning Coffee

RD-RCPT·2026-04-24·#a1f3…c218

A1Evidence checklistDocumented evidence record✓
A2Review statusNeeds review✓
A3Signed metadataAvailable✓
A4Verification linkAvailable✓
A5Human contribution recordedLyrics · edits✓
A6AI disclosure recordedTool disclosed✓
Documented
Evidence checklist
Needs review
Review status
Verify
Public verification
Signed metadata · 2026-04-24T14:22:08Z · Ed25519Verify →

Logos and names are used for identification only. RightsDocket is not endorsed by, sponsored by, or affiliated with these companies or agencies.

Why now

Don’t let the algorithm stall your release.

Four external forces are converging on every AI-assisted track right now. Each one closes a door creators didn’t see coming. RightsDocket gives you the human-authorship evidence record to keep the review moving.

01

The Upload Freeze

Threat

Deezer reported in April 2026 that almost 75,000 fully AI-generated tracks arrive daily, roughly 44% of its daily uploads. That is Deezer-specific upload data, not a cross-platform rejection rate.

Shield

Free Rights Review. Start with a no-upload first review that separates platform-specific evidence from broad risk signals: provider terms, distributor rules, AI disclosure, and the records a reviewer may ask to see.

02

The Ownership Trap

Threat

The U.S. Copyright Office threshold is human-authored expression in the output: lyrics, arrangement, performance, or creative modification a human determined. Prompts alone are not enough.

Shield

USCO-aware structured review. RightsDocket maps your human contribution, AI-generated material, and exclusion notes into a structured, data-backed evidence record reviewers can read.

03

The Rotting Digital Shoebox

Threat

Every day you wait, evidence decays. Lost prompts and scattered voice memos destroy your track’s long-term commercial value.

Shield

Pre-Production Protection. Use the Human Proof Pack to timestamp your lyrics from day one, documenting human source material before the AI generates the audio.

04

The Sync Dead-End

Threat

Music supervisors, labels, and sync agents increasingly ask whether inputs, voice or likeness permissions, AI use, and authorship boundaries can be documented before they rely on a track.

Shield

Tamper-Evident Records. Export a cryptographically signed Rights Receipt with public verification links. Hand buyers a record that shows what was documented and what still needs human or legal review.

Freshness reference: Deezer Newsroom Apr. 20, 2026 · USCO Part 2 · C2PA provenance specs View freshness log →

The category we built

The human-authorship evidence record for AI-assisted music.

Agreements, federal filing, content provenance, and distributor disclosure each cover one slice. RightsDocket sits at the intersection none of them was built for: structured USCO limitation-of-claim language, bound into a signed, timestamped record of the human contribution and the AI disclosure, that a reviewer or buyer can verify. We do not file your registration or decide ownership — we produce the reviewable evidence you carry into that filing.

How RightsDocket compares with adjacent tools across four record dimensions. RightsDocket produces the evidence record and claim language; it does not file registrations, decide ownership, or guarantee any office or platform outcome.
What a reviewer asks forRightsDocketHuman-authorship evidence recordCosyndAgreements + registration filingUSCO eCOFederal registration filingC2PAGenerator-side provenance standardAI-music distributorsDisclosure tagging at upload
Buyer-grade USCO limitation-of-claim languageStructured wording that separates the human-authored material you claim from the AI-generated material you exclude, the way the Copyright Office expects.
Yes

Generated as structured claim language from your declared facts, ready to review.

Partial

Files the registration form; the AI limitation wording is left to you to draft.

No

The form has the fields; it does not draft your AI limitation for you.

No

Not a copyright concept; provenance only.

No

Not part of distribution; out of scope.

Signed, timestamped human-authorship recordA per-track record of what a human contributed, signed and timestamped so a reviewer can check it later without contacting you.
Yes

Ed25519-signed record with optional RFC 3161 timestamp and a public verification link.

No

Produces agreements and a filing, not a signed human-contribution record.

No

Issues a registration certificate after examination, not a creation-time record.

Partial

Signs provenance metadata at the tool, but does not record the human-contribution narrative.

No

Tags a release; does not produce a verifiable authorship record.

AI-tool disclosure mapped to release pathsWhich AI tool was used, under which plan, mapped to the disclosure each office and platform asks for.
Yes

Records the AI-use facts you declare and maps them to USCO, distributor, and platform paths.

No

Focused on agreements and filing, not AI disclosure.

Partial

Asks AI questions on the form; no cross-platform mapping.

Partial

Can carry an AI-generated assertion if the generating tool wrote one.

Yes

Delivers AI-disclosure tags to streaming services at upload.

Files the federal registrationSubmitting the application and federal fee to the U.S. Copyright Office and receiving a certificate.
No

Upstream of filing: prepares the evidence and claim language you take into a filing.

Yes

Files the application with the Copyright Office.

Yes

The official filing system itself.

No

Not a filing tool.

No

Not a filing tool.

Read this as complementary, not competitive. A registration filing, a provenance signature, and a disclosure tag each answer one question. RightsDocket assembles the human-authorship evidence that holds those answers together — and it does not determine ownership, copyrightability, registration outcomes, or platform acceptance. Those stay with you, your counsel, and the offices and platforms that decide them.

Start Free Rights ReviewSee how it fits a filing

WHAT WE MONITOR

The rules around AI music keep moving. We track them so your release doesn't stall.

AI upload volume, distributor disclosure rules, USCO guidance, and provenance standards keep moving. RightsDocket monitors 15 official sources across DSPs, distributors, copyright offices, provenance standards, and AI tool terms, then turns the supported parts into questions you can answer about your track and a signed evidence record you can share.

REVIEWED SOURCES

15 official sources, monitored for every release

Every Free Rights Review draws from official sources before it asks you anything. Deezer's 2026 upload data is used as a Deezer-specific signal, not as a claim that every DSP rejects AI tracks.

DETERMINISTICRule-based checks, not hallucinated answers

AI tools

SunoUdioElevenLabsStable AudioAIVA

Distributors

DistroKidTuneCoreCD Baby

Streaming

DeezerSpotifyApple MusicYouTube Music

Standards

C2PAUSCO CompendiumEU AI Act, Art. 50
01

Copyright + filing

  • USCO AI registration guidance
  • USCO human-expression threshold
  • eCO limitation-of-claim fields
02

Provenance + timestamps

  • C2PA-aware evidence records
  • RFC 3161 trusted timestamping
  • Signed metadata verification
  • Public verification and hash readback
03

Provider + voice terms

  • Provider policy registry
  • Provider plan and commercial-use tiers
  • Voice-source and imitation rules
04

Release + disclosure paths

  • Deezer AI upload-volume data
  • Apple Music AI disclosure paths
  • DDEX-aware disclosure mapping
  • Distributor review paths

Find out what your track's evidence record already supports.

Start a Free Rights Review

What we monitor

Copyright + filing
  • USCO AI registration guidance
  • USCO human-expression threshold
  • eCO limitation-of-claim fields
Provenance + timestamps
  • C2PA-aware evidence records
  • RFC 3161 trusted timestamping
  • Signed metadata verification
  • Public verification and hash readback
Provider + voice terms
  • Provider policy registry
  • Provider plan and commercial-use tiers
  • Voice-source and imitation rules
Release + disclosure paths
  • Deezer AI upload-volume data
  • Apple Music AI disclosure paths
  • DDEX-aware disclosure mapping
  • Distributor review paths

Where it fits

You need RightsDocket when…

Six concrete moments where a structured evidence record is the difference between getting through review and getting sent back. If any of these sound like you, the Free Rights Review is built for it.

  • 01

    You made a track with Suno, Udio, ElevenLabs, Lyria, or another AI music tool

    and you want to understand what should be documented before it goes anywhere.

  • 02

    You’re preparing a registration, distributor upload, sync pitch, label review, or filing prep

    Each path has different evidence expectations. RightsDocket maps them to the work you’ve already done.

  • 03

    A distributor, label, manager, lawyer, or sync buyer asks how the track was made

    Hand them a structured record instead of an email thread and three Dropbox links.

  • 04

    You wrote lyrics or other source material before using AI

    and want stronger time-of-creation evidence for the human contribution that came first.

  • 05

    You’re not sure whether your AI tool plan or provider context may matter

    Free plan vs. Pro plan vs. enterprise terms can change what you’re allowed to do with the output. We track the rules so you don’t have to.

  • 06

    You need a structured evidence record you can hand to someone else

    without sending them your whole creative process. One HTML receipt, one signed metadata file, one verification link.

If two or more of these sound familiar, you’re already past the point where ad-hoc notes hold up.

View Sample Receipt →Start Free Rights Review

Product line

Two products. One starting point.

Every customer starts with the Free Rights Review. Based on what you have, what’s missing, and what you want to do with the track, RightsDocket recommends one of two paid products.

For existing tracks

Product 01

RightsDocket Rights Receipt

Each Rights Receipt documents one AI-assisted track with a HTML Rights Receipt, Signed Metadata, and verification link built from the evidence you already have. Pick the receipt count — everything else is included.

Choose receipt count

Receipts never expire. One-time purchase, no subscription.

Included in every receipt

  • HTML Rights Receipt
  • Signed Metadata
  • Human contribution summary
  • AI-tool and provider notes
  • Release-path notes
  • Evidence gap notes
  • Verification link
  • Print / Save as PDF
  • Timestamping & signing where applicable
$505 receipts · $10/each
Buy 5 receipts
Stronger evidence timing

Product 02

RightsDocket Human Proof Pack

Capture pre-creation source material, timestamping, and lock state before downstream AI generation changes the evidence picture. Built for higher-stakes releases.

Everything in a Rights Receipt

  • HTML Rights Receipt
  • Signed Metadata & verification link
  • Human contribution & AI-tool notes

Plus, only in Human Proof Pack

  • Pre-creation source-material capture
  • Lyric & source timestamping before AI generation
  • Lock state · creation-time record
  • Stronger evidence timing when conditions are met
  • Final record built for higher-stakes review
  • Binds timestamped source material, locked content hash, and signed export metadata

Includes Independently Verifiable Human Source Evidence Manifest

$129One-time, per track
Buy Human Proof Pack
Shared foundationBoth products use these evidence primitives
SHA-256 file hashEd25519 signatureC2PA-aware provenance recordsRFC 3161 timestamp (Human Proof Pack only)
Verify a record →

Why built differently

Most “AI-detection” tools guess. RightsDocket structures the record.

A receipt is only as strong as what stands behind it. Three things make ours easier to review under a label review, an audit, or a legal request without pretending to approve the legal outcome.

01 / Boundary

The reviewer decides. The platform records.

RightsDocket never claims your work is “human enough,” legally cleared, or granted platform sign-off. It captures what you put in, what came back, what you kept, and what remains unresolved, then signs the record.

Others“AI score: 73%”
RightsDocketInputs · Outputs · Edits · Review notes

02 / Cryptographic

Signed, hashed, and verifiable. Not narrative.

Every receipt can carry a SHA-256 content hash, an Ed25519 signature, and an optional RFC 3161 timestamp. Verification shows whether the signed record changed; it does not prove the underlying legal conclusion.

OthersStatic affidavit, trust the brand
RightsDocketSigned record · integrity check

03 / Standards

Open standards support evidence, not approval.

SHA-256, Ed25519, RFC 3161 trusted timestamps, and C2PA-aware provenance for supported assets are not RightsDocket inventions. They help reviewers inspect the evidence record, but they do not decide legal or platform status.

OthersProprietary fingerprint format
RightsDocketEvidence records, reviewer judgment

The evidence stack

What’s actually inside a receipt.

Every statement a RightsDocket receipt makes is anchored to one of these primitives. None of them are invented here, and none of them are automatic approvals.

256
SHA-256 content hash

A unique fingerprint of the final audio file. Change one sample, the hash changes. It ties the record to a file without proving ownership.

Ed
Ed25519 signature

Your authorship statement, signed with your private key. The signature confirms record integrity, not the legal truth of the statement.

3161
RFC 3161 timestamp Human Proof Pack

Trusted third-party timestamp authority countersigns the moment your receipt was issued. Independently verifiable.

C2PA
C2PA-aware provenance signals

For supported assets, RightsDocket can read or add C2PA-aware provenance signals. Those signals support the evidence record; they do not certify copyrightability, ownership, or platform acceptance.

Distribution & copyright rules04 questions

Will DistroKid or Spotify reject my AI-assisted track in 2026?+
AnswerThey can reject, remove, or limit tracks that lack clear rights, misuse someone’s voice or identity, look like mass-generated spam, or fail platform guidelines. Public sources do not support a single cross-platform AI rejection percentage.
ContextDistroKid says AI-created music is allowed, but uploaders must own 100% of the rights, avoid impersonation, avoid mass-generated spam, and avoid infringement. It also warns that streaming services may reject or remove releases that do not meet their guidelines. Deezer's April 2026 data is a Deezer-specific upload-volume signal: almost 75,000 fully AI-generated tracks per day, roughly 44% of daily uploads.
RightsDocketHelps you organize the evidence behind your track before a reviewer, distributor, or platform asks for it, without treating provenance as platform approval.
Can I copyright a song if I wrote the lyrics but AI made the beat?+
AnswerPotentially, but the copyright claim needs to focus on your specific human contributions, not the AI-generated material.
ContextThe U.S. Copyright Office says generative AI outputs can be protected only where a human author determines sufficient expressive elements. Human-authored lyrics, creative arrangements, or meaningful modifications may matter. Mere prompts are not enough.
RightsDocketHelps separate what you created from what the AI generated, so your evidence is organized for review and filing preparation.
Do my text prompts count as human authorship for AI music?+
AnswerPrompts alone are generally not enough.
ContextThe U.S. Copyright Office has said copyright may cover material where human authorship is expressed in the output, such as through perceptible human-authored work, creative arrangement, or modification — but not through the mere provision of prompts.
RightsDocketHelps you document the human contribution that goes beyond prompting: lyrics, arrangement choices, edits, stems, recorded vocals, DAW changes, or other creative decisions.
Can I use screenshots of my DAW or Suno to prove I wrote a song?+
AnswerScreenshots can support your story, but they are weak evidence by themselves.
ContextScreenshots and chat logs are easy to lose, alter, or separate from the final track. Stronger documentation uses timestamped records, cryptographic hashes, and a structured evidence trail that shows what was captured and when.
RightsDocketHelps turn scattered creation materials into a structured evidence record for review.

How RightsDocket works05 questions

What exactly does the Free Rights Review check?+
AnswerIt reviews your track information against a structured evidence and release-path workflow.
ContextWe map your track against official-source checks for metadata hygiene, human contribution disclosures, AI-tool rules, release-path notes, and provenance evidence.
Why it mattersInstead of vague advice, RightsDocket shows what is documented, what is missing, and what record you may need next.
Do I have to upload my unreleased master file?+
AnswerNo — for the browser-local review path, your raw audio does not need to be uploaded for the initial analysis.
ContextRightsDocket can generate a cryptographic hash locally in the browser. That lets the system reference a file fingerprint without storing the raw unreleased master for the free review experience.
Why it mattersYou can review release-path gaps without handing over your unreleased track file.
What do I get when the review is done?+
AnswerA clear review status and a next step.
ContextInstead of generic advice, we explicitly list the exact evidence your track is missing and provide a clear, review-first diagnostic: Ready for the next evidence step, Needs human contribution detail, or Needs review — policy details.
Why it mattersIf your evidence is incomplete, RightsDocket can point you toward a Rights Receipt for an existing track or a Human Proof Pack for stronger pre-creation evidence, or keep the item in review until the facts are clearer.
Does RightsDocket use AI chatbots to write my copyright claims?+
AnswerNo. RightsDocket uses deterministic rules to structure the evidence you provide.
ContextRightsDocket’s claim-safe principle is confirm-don’t-construct: the user asserts and supplies the evidence, and the system structures, locks, and exports the record. The creative and legal judgment stays with the human.
Why it mattersThe system does not invent your authorship story or use generative AI to hallucinate claim language.
Is RightsDocket providing legal advice?+
AnswerNo. RightsDocket is an evidence and release-path workflow, not a law firm.
ContextRightsDocket documents and structures the evidence you provide. It does not decide copyrightability, guarantee registration outcomes, verify ownership claims, or replace legal counsel.
Why it mattersThe judgment stays with the people who have standing to make it — you, your counsel, your reviewer.