NextFin News - On February 9, 2026, at the Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics, Czech ice dance duo Katerina Mrazkova and Daniel Mrazek made history—and sparked intense debate—by performing their rhythm dance routine to music partially generated by artificial intelligence. Competing at the Mediolanum Forum in Milan, the siblings utilized an AI-synthesized track designed to mimic the style of 1990s rock, specifically echoing the sonic profile of AC/DC. This decision followed a high-profile controversy earlier in the season when their previous AI-generated track was flagged for plagiarizing the lyrics of the New Radicals’ 1998 hit "You Get What You Give." According to TechCrunch, the International Skating Union (ISU) currently permits AI-generated music, provided it adheres to the season's thematic requirements, which for 2026 is the 1990s.
The Mrazkova and Mrazek case is not merely a curiosity of sports trivia; it represents a strategic, albeit controversial, response to the tightening grip of music licensing costs and copyright enforcement in international broadcasting. By using AI to generate a "sound-alike" track, the Czech team attempted to navigate the complex web of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) regulations and international royalty fees that often complicate the distribution of Olympic performances on social media and digital platforms. However, the execution revealed the inherent risks of the technology. Their initial AI track was so derivative that it triggered the very plagiarism alarms they sought to avoid, forcing a last-minute musical pivot before the Olympic stage.
From a financial and legal perspective, the adoption of AI music in figure skating signals a potential disruption of the traditional licensing model. Historically, top-tier skaters have paid thousands of dollars for the rights to use popular tracks, or have relied on specialized editors to create medleys that satisfy both artistic needs and legal constraints. AI offers a low-cost alternative, but as Mrazkova and Mrazek demonstrated, the lack of "human-in-the-loop" oversight can lead to catastrophic brand damage. The fact that the duo currently sits in 16th place suggests that while the technology solved a logistical hurdle, it may have failed to provide the emotional resonance typically required to sway Olympic judges.
The broader impact on the sports industry is profound. As U.S. President Trump has emphasized in recent executive orders regarding American technological leadership, the integration of AI into cultural and sporting exports is a matter of both economic competitiveness and intellectual property protection. The Mrazkova incident highlights a "gray zone" in current IP law: if an AI generates a track that sounds like AC/DC but uses original (or non-existent) lyrics, does it infringe on the "right of publicity" or the "trade dress" of the original band? According to BraveWords, Mrazek even wore a jacket with a logo mimicking the AC/DC font, further blurring the lines between homage and infringement.
Looking forward, the 2026 Winter Olympics will likely be remembered as the "AI Proof of Concept" games. We can expect the ISU and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to refine their regulations to include stricter definitions of "originality" for AI-assisted compositions. For athletes, the trend will move toward "Hybrid Creativity," where AI is used to generate base rhythms or atmospheric textures, which are then refined by human composers to ensure legal compliance and emotional depth. The Mrazkova case serves as a cautionary tale: in the arena of elite performance, technology can facilitate participation, but it cannot yet substitute for the authentic human connection that defines an Olympic moment.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
