Introduction
The ongoing legal battles involving AI music generators, Udio and Suno [3] [4] [8], highlight significant copyright issues in the music industry. These cases [2], initiated by both independent artists and major music labels, focus on the unauthorized use of copyrighted music in AI training datasets, raising questions about fair use and the future of AI in music creation.
Description
Udio and Suno [3] [4] [8], two AI music generators [8], are currently facing multiple copyright lawsuits, including those initiated by independent country musician Anthony Justice and his label, 5th Wheel Records [8], in the Southern District of New York and Massachusetts [8], respectively [8]. Justice [2] [6] [8], representing independent artists [2] [6], claims that these companies unlawfully included the music of indie artists in their training datasets without permission [2], disproportionately affecting creators who are often unrepresented in legal matters. He argues that the ongoing litigation involving major labels does not adequately protect musicians not signed to those labels. The lawsuits assert that Suno has admitted to duplicating “tens of millions” of publicly available songs [2], primarily owned by independent artists [2], and argue that the actions of both companies constitute unlawful infringement on the rights of these creators [2].
In addition to Justice’s lawsuits, Udio and Suno are also facing legal action from major music labels, including Universal Music Group [3] [5] [7] [8], Sony Music Entertainment [3] [7], and Warner Music Group [3] [7], with support from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The plaintiffs allege that these companies have infringed copyright by copying sound recordings owned by the labels and producing outputs that closely resemble those recordings [9], seeking damages of $150,000 for each allegedly infringed track [9]. Specific claims include that Udio generated outputs with “striking resemblances” to well-known songs such as “Dancing Queen” and “All I Want For Christmas Is You,” while Suno allegedly produced songs similar to “I Got You (I Feel Good)” and “Johnny B [9]. Goode.” Justice’s lawsuit echoes claims made by the major labels [6], asserting that Udio has infringed on copyrights by using his songs [6], including “Last of the Cowboys,” which has garnered over 8 million streams on Spotify [6]. The plaintiffs maintain that the companies trained their AI models on copyrighted recordings without proper authorization, a practice they contend exceeds the limits of fair use.
While Udio and Suno assert that their models are transformative and do not store or reproduce specific recordings [1], the central question in the litigation is whether their use of sound recordings can be classified as “fair use” under US copyright law [9]. The court will assess the amount and substantiality of the copied portions [9], considering both qualitative and quantitative factors [9], as well as the impact of the generative AI outputs on the market value of the original recordings [9], particularly whether they serve as substitutes in the market [9].
The complaints reference a recent report from the US Copyright Office, which states that unauthorized training on expressive works [2], such as music [2], does not qualify as fair use [2], particularly when it leads to the creation of competing outputs in the same marketplace [2]. A ruling from Judge Chhabria in the Suno case is anticipated later this year [1], which could establish important precedents regarding the training of AI music models and the application of fair use [1]. This brings the total number of copyright lawsuits against AI companies in the United States to 44 [8].
Amid these legal challenges, Udio and Suno are reportedly negotiating settlements with major music labels, which may involve licensing fees and equity stakes in the startups [7]. These discussions reflect a growing recognition of AI’s role in the music industry and the potential for new revenue streams through AI-generated music [7]. The labels are pushing for a fingerprinting system similar to YouTube’s Content ID, which would scan AI-generated music for similarities to existing recordings [5], facilitating rights enforcement and monetization [5]. Additionally, the labels seek direct involvement in product development [5], influencing the creation of tools and user interactions with copyrighted content [5], indicating a shift towards a more integrated licensing model [5].
However, any agreements would likely include restrictions to prevent impersonation and protect the brands’ values [7]. The labels are exploring opportunities in various areas [7], including marketing jingles and virtual artists [7], as they adapt to technological advancements in music creation [7]. Artist and songwriter organizations have expressed concerns that creators may not be consulted before any agreements are finalized [2], emphasizing the importance of securing creator consent prior to signing any deals [2]. New regulations such as Tennessee’s ELVIS Act and Utah’s SB 149 are also being introduced [1], focusing on AI voice replication and content transparency [1]. Although Suno has denied that their app allows for voice cloning of specific singers [9], concerns have been raised regarding the cloning of voices using generative AI [9]. The implications of a negative ruling could compel Udio and Suno to alter their practices or halt unlicensed model training [1], while emerging licensing frameworks may create new opportunities for creators through mechanisms like attribution [1], revenue sharing [1], and enhanced rights protection [1]. As the music industry navigates these challenges, the outcome of ongoing negotiations and litigation will significantly shape the future landscape in an era increasingly influenced by AI technologies.
Conclusion
The legal proceedings against Udio and Suno underscore the complexities of integrating AI into the music industry, particularly concerning copyright and fair use. The outcomes of these cases and negotiations could set critical precedents, influencing how AI technologies are developed and utilized in music creation. As the industry adapts, new licensing models and regulations may emerge, offering both challenges and opportunities for artists, labels [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], and AI developers alike.
References
[1] https://jackrighteous.com/en-us/blogs/jack-righteous-updates/ai-music-lawsuits-suno-udio-2025-guide
[2] https://completemusicupdate.com/musician-sues-suno-and-udio-says-indie-artists-have-been-trampled-the-most-by-unlicensed-ai/
[3] https://www.musicradar.com/music-industry/the-end-result-rights-holders-get-paid-even-less-nobody-has-the-right-to-opt-in-or-out-and-as-artists-we-have-zero-visibility-on-what-these-license-details-will-entail-the-reaction-to-a-report-that-major-labels-are-in-talks-with-ai-firms
[4] https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/2353794/ai-cos-hit-with-fresh-ip-claims-from-independent-artists
[5] https://magneticmag.com/2025/06/suno-and-udio-continue-development-during-industry-standoff/
[6] https://usatrustedlawyers.com/blog/singer-sues-udio-on-behalf-of-indie-artists/
[7] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ai/ai-insights/if-you-cant-sink-the-ship-buy-it-major-record-labels-court-ai-music-startups-like-suno-and-udio-amidst-the-million-dollar-copyright-lawsuits-charged-against-them-/articleshow/121794722.cms
[8] https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2025/06/16/country-musician-anthony-justice-sues-udio-and-suno-copyright-suits-hit-43-complaint-pdf/
[9] https://www.thetimes.com.au/world/32272-record-labels-are-suing-tech-companies-for-copying-classic-songs-%E2%80%93-and-the-results-could-shape-the-legal-future-of-generative-ai
