Why major record companies are suing AI music startups Udio and Suno for copyright infringement

In a landmark move, the Recording Industry Association of America announced that labels including Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group Recordings, and Warner Records have sued AI music generators Udio and Suno for copyright infringement. The lawsuits allege that Suno and Udio’s software steals music and “spits out” similar works, and seek $150,000 in damages for each work. The lawsuit highlights the ongoing battle between the music industry and generative AI companies over the unauthorized use of copyrighted material.

The RIAA’s lawsuit highlights that Udio and Suno’s models are trained on copyrighted music without permission, a fact acknowledged by Udio’s CEO and co-founder, David Ding. In court documents, Ding said that Udio’s high-quality output is the result of training on “publicly available, high-quality music” retrieved from the Internet. This admission is central to the plaintiffs’ argument that Udio’s output is a derivative work of copyrighted recordings.

For example, Udio used prompts such as “My hot 1964 girl Smokey sings Hitsville soul-pop” and excerpted lyrics from the Temptations to generate a track titled “Sunshine Melody,” which closely resembles the Temptations’ copyrighted song “My Girl” (all tracks have now been removed by Udio). Plaintiffs provided juxtaposed transcriptions of sheet music to show the similarities in melody, chords, and backing vocals, proving that Udio’s output was merely inspired by, and copied from, the original recordings.

Additionally, the lawsuit uncovered a pattern whereby users of Udio’s service could generate output containing replicas of specific artists’ vocals by entering prompts based on the genre and descriptions of copyrighted recordings from online music databases, such as RateYourMusic.com. 404Media demonstrated this technique to show how Udio’s and Suno’s services could replicate the vocals of specific artists, bolstering its claim that their model uses copyrighted material without permission.

Why Unauthorized Use Is Not Fair Use

At the heart of this case is the fair use argument. Some key arguments against considering AI training as fair use include:

• Commercial Purpose: These AI products are designed with commercial interests in mind that compete with the original work.
• Negative impact on the market: AI-generated music undermines existing and potential sales, distribution, and licensing markets for original recordings.
• precedent: Unlike Google Books, which did not create substitutes for original works and therefore did not harm the market, Udio and Suno’s works directly infringe on the market for original music.

Fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis, rather than being a blanket permit for the entire dataset of copyrighted material. In the Google Books case, fair use was found because no substantial substitute for the original work was created and no market harm was caused. Judge Leval, who wrote the decision, emphasized that the most important factor in determining fair use is “whether the author’s economic interest, i.e., his right to a legitimate profit, is impaired.”

These debates extend beyond music to other AI-generated content such as images. In cases like Suno and Midjourney (an image-generating AI), there are examples of blatant plagiarism, and the debate moves beyond fair use to direct infringement. After all, artists are not challenging technology, they are challenging exploitation. The artist community is broadly supportive of litigation and sees it as a necessary step to protect their rights and interests. Most artists and independent labels do not have the resources to challenge venture capital-backed AI companies, so they are looking to major labels to establish a clear legal precedent. There is a consensus on the principles of consent, compensation, and credit for AI-trained use, which Udio and Suno, another AI music company subject to litigation, allegedly violated. It is worth understanding that both major and indie record labels are siding with artists on AI issues, especially when compared to movie studios.

There are no indications that the plaintiffs are seeking settlement. As with previous cases involving visual artists, the point seems to be to establish clear and distinct legal lines and prevent unauthorized use. The outcome of this case will likely shape the landscape of AI-generated content and copyright law for years to come, determining whether creativity remains a human endeavor or becomes a mass-produced commodity trained in plagiarism.

Generative AI and Licensing

At the center of the controversy is a specific subset of AI technology: generative AI tools. These tools combine user input with trained datasets to generate unique outputs based on that data. The main concerns are the effort and licensing implications for both output and input. With generative AI tools, there is a big difference between licensed and unlicensed services.

Licensed services have agreements with rights holders to use copyrighted recordings and lyrics for training purposes. In contrast, unlicensed services such as Udio and Suno claim fair use as their justification, but this position is controversial and often viewed as unreasonable.

The issue also highlights the differences between different applications of AI in music. Not all AI in music is controversial: tools like EQ plugins and beat matching are standard components of the recording process. The discussion focuses specifically on generative AI, which creates new content based on existing work.

Impact on creativity and human expression

Critics argue that reliance on AI models stifles creativity and pollutes the information ecosystem. Some call for banning tech CEOs from using terms like “democratizing creativity” because it misrepresents the reality that work is stolen from real artists and repackaged in AI tools. The term “democratization” is seen as a misnomer for “access” and misleads the public about the true impact of AI on creativity and the distribution of power. OpenAI, Udio, or Suno are doing the exact opposite of “democratizing creativity.” By flooding the market with cheap AI products, they are destroying the market for creative work, making it harder than ever for anyone but the elite creators to earn a living. The AI ​​movement has a strange form of “capitalism for us, communism for you.” Companies that own AI models stand to make endless profits, while the rest of us are offered a universal basic income to make up for lost jobs and a so-called “level playing field” where talent and effort are devalued.

This case marks an important milestone in the ongoing battle between traditional copyright holders and the burgeoning field of generative AI. It highlights the need for a clear legal framework to protect the economic interests of creators while balancing the technological advances of AI. The outcome will be closely watched by the artist community, who hope it will strengthen their rights to consent, compensation, and control over how their work is used. Artists will never be satisfied with a settlement that does not set a precedent or one that does not ultimately allow agencies to decide whether their work is used for training.