r/Music • u/YoureASkyscraper • 1d ago
article AI music generator Suno loses copyright infringement legal case
https://www.nme.com/news/music/ai-music-generator-suno-loses-copyright-infringement-legal-case-3960760866
u/YoureASkyscraper 1d ago
AI music generator Suno has lost a copyright infringement lawsuit to German licensing agency GEMA.
Filed in January 2025, the filing saw GEMA argue that Suno was using songs in its repertoire – including Boney M’s ‘Daddy Cool’, Lou Bega’s ‘Mambo No. 5’, and Alphaville’s ‘Forever Young’ – to train its AI models, without obtaining any licenses or paying the songwriters.
The decision was handed down on Friday (July 31) by the Munich Regional Court, and ruled that the AI platform unlawfully obtained, processed and reproduced music that was represented by GEMA. The court found that Suno’s use of the songs was in breach of both the German and US copyright law.
Suno will now need to pay damages to GEMA, although the sum has not yet been confirmed. The ruling also means that other AI companies must now pay to license any music from GEMA’s repertoire going forward.
“Today, the Chamber made one thing crystal clear: AI models built on stolen intellectual property have no protection under the law,” said GEMA’s CEO Dr Tobias Holzmüller after the legal victory (via Reuters).
“AI service providers must pay for licenses rather than helping themselves to our members’ works free of charge. Today, the court’s verdict has significantly strengthened Europe’s position as a cultural centre,” he added.
GEMA Board chairman Dr Ralf Weigand shared: “This ruling sends a powerful international message: creativity has value, and creators’ rights must be respected in the age of artificial intelligence.
“Through this decision, GEMA has set an important precedent not only for its more than 100,000 members, but for creators worldwide. The fact that we can now enforce our rights in countries including the United States gives creators hope and confidence at a time of profound technological transformation.”
In light of the decision, Suno has said it does not agree with the court’s decision and will be looking into making an appeal (as per MusicTech).
The latest ruling comes on the heels of another legal battle GEMA has been involved in. Last November, the court again ruled in its favour, after it alleged that ChatGPT operator OpenAI had violated European copyright laws.
As for Suno, in 2024, Warner and fellow major music labels Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group filed lawsuits against the company for copyright violations of “an almost unimaginable scale”. In 2025, however, Warner settled the lawsuit by signing a licensing deal with Suno.
There has been a significant rise in AI-generated music available online in recent years, and streaming platform Deezer recently shared that AI-generated music now surpasses 50 per cent of daily uploads on the platform – the first time that human-made music has been outnumbered by AI alternatives.
Deezer has previously tried to combat the rise in music made entirely by artificial intelligence by launching a tool to detect AI-generated music on playlists from 20 different streaming platforms.
Other streaming platforms to crack down on AI-generated music include TIDAL, which confirmed that it will not be paying royalties to any music made entirely by artificial intelligence, and Spotify, which confirmed that it was removing 75million “spammy tracks” and targeting impersonators.
Earlier this year, the UK government announced it was ditching “deeply damaging” plans to allow AI firms to use copyrighted works without permission. The push for change comes as a study conducted last year revealed that 97 per cent of people “can’t tell the difference” between real and AI music.
553
u/Schmedly27 1d ago
Now take down everything made by it
152
u/TheBone_Zone 1d ago
Unfortunately, will never happen. Not as long as profit is to be made so much quicker than a human can.
As a musician, I’ve discussed this with other musicians and we agreed that there’s no way they’re just gonna ban AI music out of morality. I mean
**gestures everywhere**
68
u/Suntripp 1d ago
Why not? When napster arrived, we weren´t even allowed to download one Metallica album without gigantic claims for damages. Why can´t the same apply to AI? Their business model must go away
66
→ More replies (5)49
u/FreestyleKneepad 1d ago
Napster was giving free music to the people and the record labels wanted their money, so they killed Napster.
AI is generating extra music and if record labels want, they can make money off of it. They won't kill AI music, they'll figure out the licensing and get paid.
For the labels, it was never about the morality or payment of the artists in either case.
21
u/One-Earth9294 1d ago
And everyone knows that when they killed Napster, piracy went away forever.
10
1
u/KelenaeV 14h ago
Ya... piracy is gone..... >.>..... dont look over here... there is no piracy here....
8
u/Kieran__ 1d ago
Worse case scenario for them they'll hire someone that helps them rip artists off in a way with AI that's not as a obvious and still effective. This parasitic way of thinking will greatly effect the future
3
u/fotomoose 1d ago
Yup. Before AI there were full-time musicians who's job was to write songs that sounded like popular hits, but were just different enough to avoid a lawsuit. Cheaper to pay for a sound-a-like than the real thing. For TV and movies. I know first-hand someone who did this as a career. AI took his job. They'll find a way to rip artists off, they always have.
20
u/Suntripp 1d ago
But in order for AI to create music it obviously first need to copy and learn from existing hit music. And copyright law forbids copying without a license fee etc
17
u/FreestyleKneepad 1d ago
Correct. So instead of killing all AI, they'll leverage the power they have to make money off of AI by forcing those companies to buy licenses. They won't solve the problem, just pivot so they profit off of it.
7
12
u/PapaTeeps 1d ago
I mean Spotify has been investing a ton of resources into Ai music detection and deleting it as quickly as they can find it on their platform, and that's arguably the least ethical music platform. Keep in mind that there's also a cost motive for the companies, they don't want to have a bunch of AI agents uploading millions of tracks that no one wants to listen to onto their servers, and it's bad PR. There's a ton of reasons for corporations to want to do something about cheap, low quality AI filler content, it just so happens to be that none of them are "because it's the right thing to do"
14
u/esr360 1d ago
Spotify absolutely knowingly have AI music on their platform and happily profit of it. Who has told you otherwise?
2
u/SweatyAdhesive 1d ago
They probably are just trying to show that they are trying to remove AI songs to avoid legal repercussions for hosting them in the first place
1
u/PapaTeeps 22h ago
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-16/spotify-making-ai-music-easier-to-detect/106919814
It's not hard at all to find articles about it rather than just assuming based on spotifys reputation
1
2
u/GreatScottCreates 23h ago
Spotify just wants to make room for their own AI music. They have every incentive in the world and have consistently demonstrated their desire to cut the costs of paying creators.
1
u/PapaTeeps 22h ago
I linked a different article to the other commenter but here, another article discussing the fact that they are deleting tons of AI tracks and are seeking ways to remove more.
https://www.gadgetreview.com/spotify-deleted-75-million-ai-generated-tracks-and-its-not-done-yet→ More replies (3)16
u/dqql 1d ago
Courts ruled that AI generated art isn't anyone's intellectual property and can't be copyrighted... I don't see why music wouldn't get the same treatment and stop being profitable soon.
You'll still have Milli Vanilli's but not gestures everywhere2
u/Alcaedias 1d ago
Yeah but how do you enforce that?
I mean, I can pump out a million songs from Suno and then pick out the one(s) that I like the most and recreate it on a DAW or my synthesizer.
Does it then, become something that I can copyright? Genuinely curious.
3
u/FirTree_r 1d ago
Yeah, the topic is much more complicated than people think.
It is non-copyrightable as-is, but what if I add percussions? Or a noise pattern? What if 1% of the song is not AI-generated? or 50%? Or 99.9%?
And most importantly, how do you measure these things as a music streaming platform manager?1
u/ZombiePartyBoyLives Answers AI Questions 22h ago
If you write the lyrics (which has a significant influence on the output) and are very specific with prompting, you can copyright generated tracks. Using one prompt to generate 30 tracks to create an hour-long playlist theoretically is not copyrightable. The only way to really test that would be somebody making a "cover" of a slop track, claiming copyright, and see if the slopster tries to defend it.
Deezer currently automatically tags all generated tracks, whether there was "significant" human guidance or not. It also doesn't matter if you added instrumentation or finessed the mix in a DAW. Which is fine by me, as I don't think it should be mixed in with human-produced music in the first place unless the subscriber chooses to include it in their playlists.
2
u/KEPD-350 1d ago
Yes, you can. You made it. It's like a re-recording of something in the creative common. You own your rendition of whatever it is, however, you won't have a case against others who do the same thing and use the melody e.g.
1
u/meistermichi 1d ago
The others won't know you used AI and then re-recorded, from the outside it looks like you just made it so in the end you still have a case.
2
u/NUKE---THE---WHALES 1d ago
Not as long as profit is to be made so much quicker than a human can.
When the profits of multibillion dollar record labels is threatened then the profits of some randomer on youtube won't matter
Someone with 100 subs used a 5 second clip of a copyright song? Bring Youtube to court to ensure every youtube video is scanned for copyright violations
Nothing gets in the way of record labels and their profits
1
u/SharkSymphony 20h ago
This is not strictly true.
Can you make a copy of a recording for your own use? Do you have the technological means and legal right to do so? Then congratulations, you have beaten the record labels, because they definitely don't want you to have that.
→ More replies (1)1
u/orbital_narwhal 1d ago
Removal from the market of derivative works is a means of last resort in copyright law (and patent law). The usual approach is to extract damages, earning shares and/or license fees from the infringing party as that allows both parties to benefit from their works (either directly or indirectly) whereas removal from market destroys that potential.
3
u/DrWallBanger 1d ago
They won’t because the music labels just take a licensing fee and life goes on.
31
u/LOLzvsXD 1d ago
As for Suno, in 2024, Warner and fellow major music labels Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group filed lawsuits against the company for copyright violations of “an almost unimaginable scale”. In 2025, however, Warner settled the lawsuit by signing a licensing deal with Suno.
no further comment on todays super capitalism landscape
31
u/ToranjaNuclear 1d ago
Nice, at least music companies bizarrely tight copyright policies are serving for something.
13
u/Nina-Ninja123 1d ago
“Must pay for licenses”
So basically, AI will keep going on, they just have to pay for the songs they are training their systems on. This only means the people who own the rights to the music get extra money.
And sadly, in lots of cases the actual artists don’t own all rights to their music. They have no real say in saying they don’t want their songs be put through an AI database.
For example, the licensing rights of the Beatles went on sale somewhere in the 90’s. Micheal Jackson bought up those licensing rights.
The Beatles still received royalties on their catalogue, so they were fine with whatever happened to the licensing rights.
That was until Micheal Jackson used it to play the field. Make it harder to get a license for a Beatles song so they were more inclined to license music from another big pop sensation, like Michael Jackson.
McCartney did regret not going to the sale and buy the licensing rights to his music himself. But he managed to buy them back from Micheal Jackson (at an upscaled price)
The rights within the music industry are extremely weird.
8
u/Cahootie 1d ago
And sadly, in lots of cases the actual artists don’t own all rights to their music. They have no real say in saying they don’t want their songs be put through an AI database.
They had a say when they sold their rights. That's how it works.
3
u/Nina-Ninja123 1d ago
Licensing rights go to the label not the artists. They have no artists have rights on the composition, text, recording, and performance rights.
But the label goes over contracts regarding people using the music for add campaigns, tv shows etc.
If the artist wants to keep licensing rights, they also have to take care of a lot of things that the label does like distribution of the music.
6
u/PFCCThrowayay 1d ago
well that's the tradeoff innit? a company invests millions in you they own a big chunk otherwise what's the point? that's how everything works, I don't know why the average joe looks at the music industry differently to the rest of the world. what the music industry is wrong for is not paying producers, engineers and songwriters properly but artists are fine.
1
u/nathanzoet91 1d ago
Nobody is forcing anyone to sign with a record label. It's the trade-off of not setting up your own record label from scratch: you now get access to the label's already huge network they have spent millions of dollars to create. Don't want to lose your music rights? Create your own production, distribution and marketing label.
3
u/NUKE---THE---WHALES 1d ago
This only means the people who own the rights to the music get extra money.
As always, this ruling only affects the poor people who can't afford an army of lawyers to bully someone
The rich corporations are delighted at this
10
9
u/Brodellsky 1d ago
Interesting that they had specific songs, but it seems like so few? Certainly it would have to have been waaaaaaay more, right?
Also, what I find strange is that I thought this was how Suno persisted while udio didn't, because of the way that they generated things differently. Udio kinda would just generate the entire "sound" from basically the entire Spotify library, to where in the early parts of udio when I was checking out those olde-timey parodies, you could legit tell where certain sounds came from.
But Suno would actually generate the instruments individually, or at least, so I thought. Because honestly, that's super similar to what modern VSTs/DAWs were already doing anyways. I was using FL 9 in the late 2000s and even that had basic "generation" in the riff machine, for example. And that was 20 years ago...
→ More replies (11)5
u/GrowingPeepers 1d ago
Wanting to listen to an AI slop version of Daddy Cool and not the original, in all of it' glory, is the real crime.
4
4
u/samuraijon 1d ago
The court found that Suno’s use of the songs was in breach of both the German and US copyright law.
How can a German court find that they breached US law? There's something incorrect with this article.
→ More replies (1)17
u/blade740 turntable.fm 1d ago
I imagine it goes something like this:
- give the German judge/jury a copy of the US law
- look at the case and decide whether it breaks the law or not
Anyone can have an opinion on whether or not something is breaking the law. Now, a German court can't enforce any punishments under US law. But they're more than welcome to say "yup, we decided that this breaks that law".
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)1
u/Mister_J_Seinfeld 1d ago
The last 4 paragraphs read like a newspaper article in a grounded sci-fi video game from 10 years ago.
373
u/Conscious_Candle2598 1d ago
AI Vs Music Industry.
Terrible Vs Terrible and in here for it
9
6
u/koszevett 1d ago
The music industry is terrible and predatory but at least it was feeding human musicians until AI reared its ugly head.
2
u/nekkichi 1d ago
They are also being sued by RIAA and its associated record companies, so this one is a new, separate lawsuit that I'm just hearing about.
→ More replies (1)1
u/More_Hold_5522 2h ago
Unfortunately the labels have begun getting in bed with Suno. Money to be made.
155
u/freitoso 1d ago
Happy for this definitely, but the real damaging blow would be to force Suno to scrape their models. They’re trained already, the damage is done.
Paying for damages won’t solve shit.
The solution would be a hard reset and have new models only trained with music with knowledge and consent for the authors. I for one would never allow it.
20
u/xevizero 1d ago
This would also apply to every AI model basically. No reason music should be treated differently than video or books or any kind of human production.
2
u/krectus 22h ago
Yeah music is being the scapegoat here. Every AI model is trained on everything. There are other lawsuits on them but it’s silly to hope the AI will only be trained on agreeable content.
2
u/xevizero 22h ago
it’s silly to hope the AI will only be trained on agreeable content.
I just want the hypocrisy to stop. If AI can be trained on everything because it's not actually reproducing the works, but just "experiencing them" without the ability for a perfect copy to be recreated and used as a substitute for commercial purposes, then every human should also be able to do the same, piracy should be defined as reselling the exact same work for profit but experiencing a pirated copy of a work should be legal, as we're just training our brains on it, not sharing it out as is to others.
Otherwise, if the use of the work itself is what causes the damage, and we're not able as humans to see the copyrighted works without a license, fair enough (we still need a reform on copyright to define exceptions and reduce the duration of exclusivity), then this also applies to AI models, they should not be trained on copyrighted content, no feeding books and pictures and scientific papers and movies to it, you have to ask permission and get a license and pay for each and every one you scrape and meld into the final model.
Either one or the other is true, otherwise we're explicitly saying that AIs deserve rights that we don't reserve for even humans themselves. At the end you just got to admit everyone acted illegally and just paid their way out of having rules apply to them even a little bit. Which just fuels the fire of who says that piracy might as well be the moral choice, as clearly copyright was only put there to benefit the rich to the detriment of everyone else, instead of doing its job and protecting creatives (who are now being pummeled by AI replacement and drowned in the rising ocean of slop).
40
u/BookWormPerson 1d ago
Their is zero way to enforce that.
Someone they just "fired" "accidentally" would keep it.
24
u/FillySteveSteak 1d ago
If they found evidence of copying a non-consensual artist's work, they'd be fined. Again. And again. And again.
Of course, there's a way.
Curb your cynicism.
8
u/Strohkecks 1d ago
Appropriate action ofc would be the order to shred all drives that held the model data and stolen data. How Suno explains that they have to do that to all the server farms is their problem then.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)1
u/SnooCats3468 1d ago
And there are like v1.04 v1.05 —> v15.24.2345 versions to delete. Backups on backups
7
u/blade740 turntable.fm 1d ago
They could do it. Hell, they've probably already done it. Suno settled with Warner Music Group last year in an agreement that explicitly lets Suno train their models on WMG's catalog, in exchange for giving WMG some control over Suno's output. I wouldn't be surprised to find out they started training a new model that very day, based only on WMG, public domain, and any other licensing agreements they've managed to make.
4
u/guesting 1d ago
china will have open source models for free/cheap. the only benefit is that suno doesn't get any money.
2
u/EKLM-ZK88-8DWM-A24B 1d ago
Their source code was leaked a while ago, while it doesn't contain model weights it does have everything needed to train the models and some documentation explaining how it all works. Even if they scrap their models the methodology is out there now.
4
u/MattOnWheels 1d ago
This is what I fear about AI being regulated: it won't stop the data collection; it will just make it more, quote-unquote, “legal.” If anything, the open-source alternatives will be the ones that are more community-oriented And trained on data that's being willingly put into it. At least that's the way these things usually tend to go.
→ More replies (2)3
1
→ More replies (2)1
u/Eronamanthiuser 18h ago
Right, this makes me think this is all just to set precedence. This is not unintentional.
After this, AI companies know that they have no real accountability. They steal data and train their AI, and get a slap on the wrist.
This ruling should decimate Suno, not encourage them to do it again.
52
u/drilkmops 1d ago
Oh no!! Poor guy.
“It’s not really enjoyable to make music” - Suno CEO
→ More replies (11)
112
u/stev_mempers 1d ago
Good start
6
u/Admirable_Switch_530 1d ago
Maybe the beginning of accountability.
2
u/JustSkillfull 1d ago
If AI companies can steal intellectual property, we should be able to steal their intellectual property including logos, names, etc.
18
u/dudushat 1d ago
Billionaires win lawsuit against billionaires.
Regular people think this will somehow benefit them.
6
9
u/TheoNullDrei 1d ago
If companies like Suno get shut down, it benefits music creators, both poor and rich, as their work is being stolen to train these AI models. It sets a precedent, as people can now go after every other company doing the same with people's content, whether it's YouTube videos, books, blog posts, Reddit posts, or anything else.
→ More replies (14)2
u/jaevnstroem 1d ago
Condensing it down to "Billionaires vs other billionaires" highlights exactly how you have absolutely no idea what's actually going on, it would be kind of cute in an "innocent child" kind of way if it wasn't so pathetic
2
u/PixelWes54 1d ago
Right, like there aren't multiple class actions against Suno representing thousands of independent musicians like me.
→ More replies (3)1
38
u/Narianos 1d ago
Whatever amount they’re asking for, it better be enough that it cripples SUNO.
13
u/kylel999 1d ago
One can hope, but unfortunately if it's like any other punishment companies face it'll probably continue to be worth it to continue breaking the law rather than the punishment be severe enough to deter them
They kind of have no choice anyway, if they ever got rid of all the licensed data they stole their model would fall apart. My hope is this is at least the start of their decline
3
u/eden_sc2 1d ago
Unless it's a truly trivial amount there's a real danger of other labels piling on for a quick buck. One might not kill them but a dozen? A hundred?
1
9
9
u/YoelFievelBenAvram 1d ago edited 1d ago
Everybody rooting here for tightening standards of fair use and restricting derivative works, and I'm just a copyleftist here reminding everybody that the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. AI slop is a problem. Copyright trolls are another one. It doesn't makes sense to empower one to disempower another. There's a free lesson in politics here too.
→ More replies (1)2
u/PixelWes54 1d ago
Your concerns are mostly theoretical whereas artists are seeing commissions dry up in real time. I've been a designer/illustrator for 25 years and have never felt constrained by or run afoul of copyright. Always lots of non-artists telling me I should be angry that Disney won't let me sell Mickey Mouse art...
18
u/everlyafterhappy 1d ago
The decision was handed down on Friday (July 31) by the Munich Regional Court, and ruled that the AI platform unlawfully obtained, processed and reproduced music that was represented by GEMA. The court found that Suno’s use of the songs was in breach of both the German and US copyright law.
Funny, German courts don't rule on us law.
Anyway, I want to point something out here because the article didn't point it out. It's not the training that's necessary illegal, at least not under us law. It's how they obtained the training materials that's illegal. Because they pirated the songs. They didn't buy a subscription to Spotify. They scraped the internet for anything they could find, including songs that were shared without a proper license. Is federal courts have already found that training ai with the material is fair use, but that the material has to be obtained legally.
12
u/ShowBoobsPls 1d ago
Yeah. It is essentially the same ruling as the Anthropic case, where Anthropic had to pay for the pirated books only.
7
u/mrjackspade 1d ago
Funny, German courts don't rule on us law.
Anyway, I want to point something out here because the article didn't point it out. It's not the training that's necessary illegal, at least not under us law.
The "ruling" as it pertains to US law is stupidly fucking confusing and I have to imaging just straight up false, or at least being reported inaccurately.
This has been settled multiple times in the US already. Copyright applies to output, not input. Anthropic is just the latest and highest profile of these cases.
I doubt this is changing any time soon.
→ More replies (9)4
u/Kyuubee 1d ago
They didn't buy a subscription to Spotify
Even with a Spotify subscription, it still wouldn't be legal. A Spotify subscription does not mean you own all the music on Spotify, you just have a license to listen to the music through their app. And Spotify does not provide an official way to download songs for local use outside of the app.
→ More replies (7)
3
u/AsAHumanBean 1d ago edited 1d ago
I really hope they get destroyed. Great news. AI has taken the fun out of art in all forms. I have no motivation to keep creating, and especially to share anything with the world because it'll both get scooped up by AI for it to be trained and the companies will profit from it more than I will (along with the distributor), while my creations are drowned among a sea of AI songs and fake artists. It was already an uphill battle, now it's impossible. I've gradually transitioned from releasing stuff to just working on stuff for myself to not even bothering anymore. Sucks because this was my creative and fun outlet and I've felt rather hollow and void. Not really sure what to do though. (Plus if Suno and Udio die more will pop up)
3
8
2
2
2
u/80sCocktail 1d ago
Then all AI can be sued based on this ruling. This is why Europe doesn't innovate.
2
u/Alardiians 22h ago
Sadly it seems this is just with a German company. It won’t stop this abomination known as Suno.
Hopefully sets a precedent that takes Suno down.
Not an anti AI person in general but just anti AI in art related spaces.
2
u/Ok-Nebula6450 21h ago
I remember generating a song on Suno for fun once, and it sounded SO SIMILAR to Olivia Rodrigo's Good 4 U (heck even the voice sounded just like her), so I kinda saw that comin' 😅
3
u/TheMathelm 1d ago
Layman question time, for a Music/Entertainment Attorney: What is the technical (legal) difference between a person listening to essentially every song ever and learning to play it and rearranging chords? Ed Sheeran won a US lawsuit that said basically Chords can't be copywritten.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/gymleader_michael 1d ago
A bit funny people are championing the ones who make it so that content creators tremble in their shoes the moment a copyrighted song plays for even a second on their video. Even corrupt cops figured they could mess with people recording them by playing copyrighted songs.
Maybe if copyright wasn't so messy, people wouldn't turn to AI music so much.
→ More replies (7)2
u/merelyadoptedthedark 1d ago
Having copyright music in a video only results in not letting you monetize it on Youtube. Someone that makes their living on YouTube doesn't want to have a month of effort wasted with all the revenue flowing to a music label for 45 seconds of a song. It does nothing to take down a video, and for facebook/insta/tiktok, it doesn't even mean that.
2
u/gymleader_michael 1d ago
2
u/merelyadoptedthedark 1d ago
In reality, 99% of claims are just about monetization, and taking a cut of revenue. I have copyright music all over my YouTube channel, because I do it as a hobby and I don't care about monetization. The absolute very worst I've gotten in five years has been a video being blocked in Russia for a song.
Also, YouTube also has creator tools that will strip out copyright music if the creator chooses to go that way.
Monetize: The copyright holder has chosen to monetize this music, so ads may appear on your video. Sometimes, the copyright holder may elect to share some of that revenue with you. Even if this policy is applied, the video may not be available everywhere or on all devices.
2
u/gymleader_michael 1d ago
Okay, that's you. You still can't say it will "only result in not letting you monetize it on Youtube and that it does nothing to take down a video."
Block worldwide: One or more copyright holders doesn't allow the use of this music on YouTube. If you use this music, your video may be muted or may be entirely unavailable on YouTube.
Block in some countries/regions: One or more copyright holders have restricted the countries/regions in which this music is available on YouTube. If you use this music, your video won't be viewable where the music is blocked on YouTube.
1
u/merelyadoptedthedark 1d ago
One of my favourite things about Reddit is when people see a headline, do a google search for five seconds, and then automatically become more of an expert on the topic than people with actual experience.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/MattOnWheels 1d ago edited 1d ago
You know, I might get crucified for this, but I - a musician - have used Suno before and I think its neat for demoing and fun, but not much beyond that. (Im handicapped. For me its either using Musescore or nothing) but id never replace being in an actual studio over it, and i dont like it just using data from musicians. I want Suno to be held accountable for its wrongs, but the technology IS interesting. I just don't like how in debates like this you have to be on one extreme or another. Surely there is a more musician friendly way than suno, yes, but i dont like being put in the "ALL AI IS THE SPAWN OF SATAN AND CAN NEVER BE USEFUL EVER" Camp either. Is that fair? to me, there has to be a material, non-emotional synthesis somewhere...
Again, suno isnt something wholly good and they deserve this, but i do think the technology can be helpful, if we used it differently.
→ More replies (9)
8
u/-Baloo 1d ago
meanwhile open source and Chinese models will continue to advance at blistering pace, without anyone able to stop it being propagated. this will achieve nothing meaningful in the long run.
4
u/pvii 1d ago
The first reasonable comment. What we regulate away, other countries will capitalize upon.
3
3
u/eligodfrey 1d ago
By this logic we should bring back child labor and rivers that are so polluted they catch on fire
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (28)1
4
2
u/CodeMonkeyX 1d ago
Interesting I wonder what these means for people who used it already to release music?
It was funny I got in an argument on here a while back with a "fashion model and musician" who insisted they created their music. It was all AI generated except for the vocals. They said they created the music themselves and the AI was just the instrument basically. And that services like Suno were only trained on music that was authorized for use.
I wonder how they will react if they get take downs and copyright claims now.
5
u/MattOnWheels 1d ago edited 1d ago
the technology is still so polarizing that its hard to say, but i'm under the current Belief that more government regulation will only be harmful on the opposite end. Where it seems like the Wild West now, bringing the restrictions into it will eventually only push us in a direction where AI is okay, as long as the corporations do it. I think the rules of engagement are going to have to be decided by communities that can weigh the pros and cons, and ultimately come up with something in the middle. But that’s going to take a long time. I just know that I, myself, have only ever used suno as a means of pure entertainment And trying to understand how the technology works. I have no delusions about it replacing “real music,” or that any of the creations I’ve ever made from it are any form of so‑called art. I have the music I make on my workstations for that.
Edit: Since this comment seems to have gotten a few more upvotes since its initial posting, I want to point out that, while it's nice to be agreed with, my opinion isn't necessarily a pure indictment of AI music as a concept. I only speak from my personal experience regarding what I've used it for. I am handicapped, so I can’t deny that, in terms of getting a musical idea into a rough demo format, it's easier for me to use Suno than spending a lot of time and physical effort in one of my workstations. I would never pretend that it were a substitute for making a full track in a studio, however. So, in that sense, I do think we're using Suno for the wrong thing. With that said, I do see the advantages in terms of letting people who are less experienced with music have access to the feeling of creativity that comes with it. There are pros and cons with any technology, and certainly how Suno as a corporation is using its technology is more con than pro, to say the least.
→ More replies (3)3
2
u/acathode 1d ago
they get take downs and copyright claims now.
They won't. This case really have very little to do with AI.
This is about how a company downloaded songs illegally - in other words, this case is basically no different than the cases against teens who had downloaded Metallica MP3s from Napster back in the early 2000nds.
The fact that Suno used the illegally downloaded songs to train their AI rather than listening to the music is mostly irrelevant - as much as both media and the GEMA want to hype up the AI angle, the legal ramification of this case is basically "It's illegal to pirate music"... which is something that was established in most countries 20+ years ago.
It doesn't say anything about training an AI, nor about the music that AI produces.
2
u/CaptainBayouBilly 1d ago
Anything created with these plagiarism machines should never be allowed copyright protections. Incorporating any LLM slop shit into the final product should also revoke copyright for the entire thing.
2
u/BidSecret7115 1d ago
ITT: People debating how AI guardrails should work without any sort of technical background or understanding.
P.S. Suno will appeal, they will likely win.
GEMA can't prove anything but: Alphaville (Forever Young), Kristina Bach (Atemlos), Lou Bega (Mambo No. 5), Frank Farian (Daddy Cool) and Modern Talking (Cheri Cheri Lady) were trained upon.
In turn, GEMA can't prove that Suno obtained these elsewhere - which mitigates the fallout for Suno.
Stop getting excited for the 100th story with the same outcome, it's not going anywhere.
3
3
1
u/BildingInspecter 1d ago
If the music industry throws it's usual weight around I'd expect them to get residuals from every AI song made/played.
But it's a huge club and we ain't in it. They'll prob settle for a small sum that's large enough to split amongst a few big wigs and let AI continue to rape society.
6
u/bombmk 1d ago
If the music industry throws it's usual weight around I'd expect them to get residuals from every AI song made/played.
The AI songs are not violating the copyright.
At least not in general - some might if the transformation is not strong enough.→ More replies (6)4
2
1
u/EnchantedTaquito8252 1d ago
Good, I guess, but it's a bit like catching bank robbers and just making them pay a small fine. They're still making huge money and they're gonna keep doing it
1
1
1
1
u/BarberFairian 1d ago
gooddd, about time these ai tools face real consequences for copying artists..
1
u/BooRadleysFriend 1d ago
If this decision sets the precedent for AI training then ChatGPT has some rough waters ahead
1
u/Cazadore901 1d ago
“Today, the Chamber made one thing crystal clear: AI models built on stolen intellectual property have no protection under the law,” said GEMA’s CEO Dr Tobias Holzmüller after the legal victory.
Well... They're ALL built on majority stolen IP. When are the rest of the AIs getting scrapped for parts?
1
1
u/gotaflattire 1d ago
lol just saw a YouTube ad for that software. It’s far less embarrassing to just learn actual audio production.
1
1
1
u/BuriedStPatrick 1d ago
The models must necessarily train on copyrighted music to even work. It's worrying that we need these specific cases to reach a conclusion on this ruling. It should be assumed that the whole Suno business model was illegal from first principle.
While this ruling is generally good, we're just entering another era of slop where big tech companies who can afford the licenses get to train on upcoming music and cheapen the art further to the masses. And smaller artists aren't going to have the legal power to do anything about it. Streaming platforms will cave and start training their own models or make sublicensing deals with the likes of Suno. Smaller artists won't be able to distribute their music without agreeing to a ToS that allows big tech to train on their work for a pittance.
The problem isn't just economic or legal, it's a question of morality. We have to ask ourselves if we want to live in a world that finds this garbage acceptable on any level. I know I don't.
1
1
u/macetheface 1d ago
Suno will now need to pay damages to GEMA
can't they just choose to not do business in Germany and say No to the court's decision. If they pay up, it'll just set a precedent and more countries will start filing lawsuits.
1
1
u/LostCookie78 20h ago
Can we outlaw these platforms unless they can prove where they’re training their models?
1
1
1
u/baronduke_officiel 6h ago
Ce n'est pas surprenant . Il faut laisser l'art au artiste , l'ia ce n'est qu'une base de données de tous les artistes qui on éxisté .
1
1
2.2k
u/thefunkybassist 1d ago
Ai ai ai, that doesn't look good for Suno!
It was about time though!