Royalty society GEMA has successfully sued and enjoined AI “music” producing company SUNO in Germany, and the decision could have massive implications worldwide. Suno allows users to make new auditory works from text-based and music-based prompts. Suno, in other cases, has admitted to making copies of copyrighted works but has hinged its entire defense on Fair Use, 17 USC 107.
GEMA accused SUNO of copyright infringement under two main theories: first, that Suno made illegal copies of copyrighted works as inputs for its training model; and second, that a user could very easily create infringing outputs. Suno, again, asserted the Fair Use defense – arguing that their use was “transformative.”
According to the German court’s press release on the decision, Suno argued that, “The contested outputs were the result of complex, iteratively refined prompts developed by the plaintiff; therefore, the causal link was broken by the intervening, targeted user action. Insofar as German law was applicable, no copyright-relevant use had occurred. Any potential legal infringements are justified by the limitations of text and data mining.”
However, the German court found that the data extraction and incorporation into outputs (dubbed “memorization”) was infringement. It found that this was not random because of the substantial similarity between the inputted copyrighted material and resultant output. The memorization process constitutes an infringement of the reproduction right under Section 16 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG). This reproduction in the models is not covered by the limitations on text and data mining under Section 44b of the German Copyright Act (UrhG). The court also ruled that, by playing the music in the outputs in Germany, the defendants had unlawfully reproduced and publicly performed the musical works in question.
Why Is a U.S.-Based AI Music Company Being Sued in Germany?
According to the Chamber’s decision, pursuant to Section 131, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the German Copyright Act (VGG), the Chamber has international jurisdiction for claims arising from infringements committed in the United States because servers were located in Germany, outputs occurred in Germany, and Suno harmed German artists.
What Comes Next for Suno—and What Could This Mean in the U.S.?
The German Court addressed Suno’s fair use defense (even though it did not need to) and found it to be inapplicable on these facts. Specifically, because a user could use non-specific prompts and still result in outputs that were substantially similar to copyrighted works, Suno’s fair use defense failed.
This decision will be appealed by Suno, so this is not the last note in the musical battle in Europe. Also, this is a German court, so it is not binding on the USA. That said, you have to be a pretty smart to be a judge in Germany, so this ruling could be convincing to many courts here in the USA.
Also, the practical implications are very real. If Europe makes it painful for Suno to operate, and easier for artists to earn a living, we could see a migration of musicians to Europe if this trend continues. Ireland has already started its basic income program for artists, so the trend would find solid footing. Alternatively, we could see Suno finally cave and start paying to use music libraries, on top of the deal they struck with Warner Music Group.
Stay tuned in for more updates on how we will deal with this new, existential technology.
FAQ: Suno, GEMA and AI Music Copyright
What was the GEMA case against Suno about? GEMA accused Suno of using copyrighted musical works to train its AI music model and of enabling outputs that were substantially similar to protected songs.
What did the German court find? The court found that Suno’s use of protected works in training and outputs could constitute copyright infringement, including reproduction of protected musical works.
Does the German ruling control U.S. courts? No. The ruling is not binding in the United States, but it may influence arguments in U.S. AI copyright cases involving fair use, substantial similarity and licensing.
Why does this matter for musicians and AI companies? The decision adds pressure on AI music platforms to license copyrighted music and may strengthen arguments that creators should be compensated when their works are used to train or generate AI outputs.
About the Author
Tim J. Billick is a patent and intellectual property attorney at Practus who focuses on IP litigation, trademark and patent prosecution, and technology licensing. His experience spans technologies including mechanical engineering, software, medical devices and consumer products, and he has represented clients before federal courts, the International Trade Commission and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. A musician and former entrepreneur, Tim brings a creator-focused perspective to helping clients protect inventions, brands and creative works.
