Would I Release This? An AI Christmas Song Built From an Older Poem
Share
Would I Release This? An AI Christmas Song Built From an Older Poem
Robert sent me an AI-created musical setting of a poem he identified as “A Cowboy’s Christmas Poem.” He posted the finished version to YouTube as “A Cowboy’s Christmas Song” and assumed there was nothing to monetize because the poem was “public domain” and AI was involved.
That assumption sounds cautious. It is also exactly where the rights lesson begins.
Poem: “A Cowboy’s Christmas Poem” · Song: “A Cowboy’s Christmas Song”
Robert described the source he used as the poem “A Cowboy’s Christmas Poem.” He set it to music using AI and posted the result free on YouTube as “A Cowboy’s Christmas Song.”
Listen to the song on YouTube →
Why it is linked here: this is the exact song being discussed in the case study. I am not promoting or monetizing the track in this article; the link is here so you can hear the example before we examine the rights questions around it.
My answer: I would not take this specific song to commercial release yet. Not because public-domain material or AI automatically blocks monetization, but because the first rights fact still needs to be proven: exactly which poem and version were used, and is that text actually public domain where the song would be released?
Public domain, monetization, AI and copyright are not the same thing.
Creators often collapse them into one yes-or-no answer. That is how a cautious statement like “I cannot monetize this” can be just as misleading as an overconfident statement like “it is old, so I can use it.”
Can I use the underlying words?
That depends on the exact literary work, its author, publication history and the law in the territories that matter.
Can I monetize the new video or recording?
Potentially. YouTube says public-domain content can be monetized when you can prove its status and you have the necessary commercial rights to the other elements.
Does AI automatically block monetization?
No. YouTube’s current policy focuses on original, authentic content and rights clearance. Its guidance says AI use itself does not make a channel ineligible for monetization.
Do I own copyright in the whole result?
Not necessarily. Commercial permission to use a tool is different from copyright ownership in every element of the output.
“Old” and “famous” do not mean public domain.
Robert described the source to me as a famous public-domain poem titled “A Cowboy’s Christmas Poem.” That is his description of the source—not a rights conclusion I am independently treating as established. Before commercial release, I would identify the exact text, author and source edition.
There is a well-known, similarly titled work called A Cowboy’s Christmas Prayer attributed to S. Omar Barker, who lived from 1894 to 1985. I cannot confirm from the material I have that this is the exact poem used in Robert’s song. But that similarity is enough to demonstrate why I would stop and verify instead of relying on a familiar title.
In Canada, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office says copyright generally lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. That means a work by an author who died in 1985 would not ordinarily become public domain in Canada simply because it feels old. Read CIPO’s copyright guide →
United States status can require a different work-specific analysis involving publication date and historical copyright rules. I would not guess from age alone.
My five-step release check
Identify the source
Save the exact poem text, title, author, source page or book, edition and any attribution information. Do not use “I found it online” as a rights record.
Prove the permission path
Document why the text is public domain in the relevant territory, or obtain the permission or licence needed to use it.
Document the AI tool and plan
Robert’s email did not identify which AI music tool or subscription plan created the recording. I would verify the commercial-use terms that applied when the song was generated.
Document the human contribution
What did the creator choose, arrange, rewrite, edit, perform, sequence or materially modify? The answer matters for understanding what human-authored material may be protectable.
Clear the whole package
Check the recording, voice, artwork, video, metadata, samples and any other assets separately before distributing or claiming rights.
The U.S. Copyright Office’s AI report makes an important distinction: AI-assisted work is not automatically excluded from copyright, but protection depends on sufficient human-authored expressive elements. Merely providing prompts is not, by itself, enough. Read the U.S. Copyright Office summary →
My decision changes depending on what “release” means.
Useful as an experiment and teaching example, assuming the upload itself does not infringe someone else’s rights. “Free” does not create a copyright exemption, but commercial intent is not required for a rights issue to exist.
Not yet. I would hold distribution until the exact source text, its status, the AI platform terms and the other assets are documented.
I would be especially cautious. If important elements are public domain, non-exclusive or generated under terms that do not support exclusivity, do not assume you can claim the entire recording or composition as uniquely yours.
If the source poem is verified as usable, the AI platform grants the needed commercial rights, and the rest of the package is cleared, a commercial release may be possible. The fact that the source is public domain would not itself prevent monetization. The fact that AI was used would not automatically prevent it either.
YouTube’s own guidance says public-domain material can be monetized when its status can be established and the creator has the necessary commercial rights to the remaining visual and audio elements. Its monetization policies also target repetitive or mass-produced inauthentic content rather than imposing a blanket ban on AI-assisted creation. YouTube: what content can be monetized →
The creator was not trying to monetize it.
That matters. This began as a creative demonstration: take an older poem, hear what it can become as a song, and share the result. There is nothing wrong with stopping there.
But it is exactly the kind of experiment that teaches a larger lesson. A creator can make something interesting without deciding to build a commercial release around it. And if that decision changes later, the rights check needs to happen before distribution—not after a claim, takedown or metadata problem appears.
This is also why I separate AI-Generated, AI-Assisted and Full Copyright as practical labels. They are not interchangeable promises. They help creators ask what was generated, what was contributed by a person, what can be commercially used and what can actually be claimed.
I have already used a Christmas classic as a different kind of case study.
My earlier article on reimagining ’Twas the Night Before Christmas with AI started from a source whose public-domain status could be established. That is a different starting point from assuming an older work is free to use because it circulates online.
Read the ’Twas the Night Before Christmas AI case study →
The contrast is useful: public domain can open creative possibilities, but verification is part of the creative workflow.
Run the release check before you treat the song as release-ready.
If you are preparing AI-generated or AI-assisted music for stores, use the broader release checklist to review rights, disclosure, metadata, technical quality and release strategy together.
Before You Distribute AI Music in 2026 →
AI Music Ownership & Rights: Copyright, Platform Terms & Deal Leverage →
Sources used for this rights check
Canadian Intellectual Property Office — A Guide to Copyright
U.S. Copyright Office — Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 summary
Creator-rights note: This article is educational information, not legal advice. Public-domain status and copyright duration can vary by country, work type and publication history. Verify the exact source material and the terms that apply to your tools and release territory before relying on a rights conclusion.
Create What You Love | Love What You Create.
