AI and Julio Iglesias: Revolution or Rights Violation?

“I love life, and I love love, I’m a scoundrel, I’m a gentleman…” These iconic lyrics from Julio Iglesias’ classic hit, written by Ramón Arcusa of the Dúo Dinámico, have found new life—but not in the way the artist or his songwriter might have imagined. A reggaeton-style version of the song, allegedly generated using artificial intelligence, has surfaced online. To add to the controversy, a video featuring a digitally altered version of Julio Iglesias walking through parties and beaches accompanies the song, which features a voice other than his own.

The case came to light when Arcusa himself shared his thoughts on the social platform X (formerly Twitter): “This has been done with AI, based on the original song I wrote for Julio Iglesias. Honestly, I don’t know what to think. Help me.” This raises an important question: does this use of AI infringe on the copyrights of the original creators?

The Complexities of Copyright and AI

Copyright laws aim to protect original works and ensure creators have control over how their creations are used. In Spain, as Pilar Sánchez-Bleda, head of IP and technology at Auren Spain, explains, any new work based on a copyrighted piece is considered a derivative work. Creating such a version without the consent of the original author constitutes a violation of both copyright and exploitation rights.

A derivative work, as Sánchez-Bleda notes, arises from altering or modifying an existing piece. However, both the original creator and the one who crafted the derivative version hold rights to their respective contributions. Additionally, authors are protected by moral rights, which include the recognition of authorship, preservation of the work’s integrity, and protection of the author’s reputation.

“When AI is used to create a new version, it can infringe moral rights if the author feels the reinterpretation is harmful to their work’s prestige,” explains digital law expert Borja Adsuara. Similarly, Santiago Mediano, a lawyer specializing in intellectual property and artificial intelligence, emphasizes that any AI-generated adaptation requires permission. A creator might object to the style of the reinterpretation, finding it offensive or simply unappealing, which would violate their moral and exploitation rights.

The Role of AI in Copyright Infringement

Artificial intelligence introduces several potential infringements, as David Gómez, managing partner of Baylos, points out. “AI can generate violations of copyright if the output resembles an existing protected work; of image rights if it includes a person’s likeness, such as their voice or face; and even acts of unfair competition, like deception or imitation.”

In this particular case, the video featuring a digitally altered image of Julio Iglesias further complicates matters. Sánchez-Bleda highlights that a person’s image is legally protected, and any modification requires explicit consent, except in cases of parody, which are narrowly defined under Spain’s Intellectual Property Law.

Even if the case qualifies as a parody, the courts must decide whether the new version infringes on Iglesias’ rights and, if so, determine appropriate compensation. Adsuara adds that while public figures like Iglesias have limited privacy protections, they still retain control over their image and moral rights.

Platforms, Precautions, and Legal Remedies

If Julio Iglesias or his team wished to take action, they could request the removal of the video from online platforms, many of which have mechanisms for rights holders to file takedown requests. Lawyers like Mediano urge creators to take proactive measures, such as excluding their works from AI databases or establishing strict conditions for AI-generated adaptations.

“AI is here to stay, and it can be used by anyone,” Mediano warns. Artists should consider implementing safeguards to ensure they remain in control of their creations. This approach would allow them to decide whether their works can be reimagined using AI and under what terms.

When AI Becomes a Double-Edged Sword

Interestingly, AI-generated adaptations can also provide opportunities. For some, these reinterpretations might reignite interest in forgotten works or artists. “If the artist doesn’t mind and it helps relaunch their career, they may choose to tolerate or even embrace such uses,” Mediano explains.

However, the legal responsibility ultimately falls on the person using the AI output for commercial purposes—not the AI itself. While Julio Iglesias may not need such a resurgence, other artists might see AI as a chance to reintroduce their work to a modern audience.

Whether a tool for innovation or a potential threat to intellectual property, AI continues to challenge the boundaries of creativity and legality. In the case of Julio Iglesias, the debate between technology’s possibilities and artistic rights remains open—and far from settled.