If it is all AI generated music and vocals no royalties can be had...The lyrics ( whoever wrote them ) are the property of the composer...If suno actually duplicated the music arrangement whomever composed the music has a claim to that piece of the pie...Bottom line is unless some movie or TV show picks it up it is unlikely it will generate much $$$ but if by some crazy chance it did.. getting any $$ is related to the lyrics and the composition unless that is you actually playing and singing on it.
It works differently in the UK, at least in terms of how royalties are collected.
There's no distinction between who wrote what.
Every contributing writer is noted with a %, usually agreed by the band in advance.
Queen famously went 25 each way on everything, no matter what.
With PRS we're registering that written work - Not recordings, interpretations, covers or versions - Just one master work.
There will be one entry for "Hallelujah" no matter how many people covered it or re-recorded it.
A cover recording's unique ID, if assigned by a distributer, gets 'linked' to the original PRS entry so the writers of the original work get their money.
PRS has a complex system which aims to do this,
and there are ways to notify them if you believe a cover hasn't been matched successfully, or doesn't have its own unique code.
That can get messy, but it's possible.
With PPL it's different. You're registering recordings of a work.
No one there cares who wrote it - They want to know who played what on every published recording.
Harry Fox is another separate branch - That's a mechanical license covering physical duplication of works which you did not write.
Whether the original work (compilations) or a cover, you'd need a mechanical license to cover the 1000 CDs you want to make, or whatever.
In the case of the first post, if Rob is a contributing writer then the song should already be registered with PRS and his name should be there.
At most he'd want to notify PRS of the existence of an IDless cover version at the following URLs.
If the Suno work is documented as a cover and/or is clearly based on the original then it's a cover.
Questions about what Suno did/didn't do, does/doesn't own become irrelevant.
There is a line *somewhere* where it becomes derivative work rather than a cover;
maybe a case where the music is entirely unrecognisable and only snippets of lyrics are used.
In cases like that the right thing is for the creator of this new recording to approach the authors of the source song and reach a % credit deal,
but I doubt that comes in to the play here if the lyrics are, for the most part, clearly recognisable.
If the writing split for the original work was not registered in the past then I'd be slightly concerned about coming along and claiming a share now,
firstly because it's unclear what % you should be claiming without agreement from the other writers,
(although there may be a default approach I'm not aware of)
and secondly because the person publishing this doesn't seem to think you were a writer at all, based on his video description/credits.
It's complicated but, perhaps, not in the way you'd expect.
