Two of the most prominent AI music startups, Suno and Udio, are at the center of a legal storm after being sued in June 2024 by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on behalf of major record labels including Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Records. Filed in federal courts in Massachusetts and New York, the lawsuits allege that the platforms unlawfully trained their generative music models using millions of copyrighted sound recordings without permission. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctions, statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed work, and a legal precedent that could reshape how artificial intelligence is used in the creative industries.
The music labels argue that these AI models were built through the unauthorized ingestion and reproduction of copyrighted works, and that their outputs – often indistinguishable from real songs – pose a direct threat to both market share and artist livelihoods. They assert that the AI-generated songs mimic the style, voice, and composition of popular artists and therefore qualify as derivative or infringing works. The RIAA claims that this constitutes more than just technical copying—it is an act of large-scale digital piracy, cloaked in technological novelty. They further insist that the platforms’ actions do not meet the legal criteria for fair use, as they lack transformation and serve commercial purposes.
In response, both Suno and Udio have mounted vigorous defenses, positioning themselves as innovators unfairly targeted by entrenched industry players. Their legal teams argue that training AI models on existing media constitutes fair use, likening it to a musician learning through listening. They emphasize that their outputs are original compositions, not reproductions, and contend that their technology democratizes creativity rather than threatens it. More provocatively, they suggest that the music industry’s litigation is aimed not at protecting artists, but at stifling competition and preserving legacy power structures.
At the heart of the lawsuits lies a web of complex legal and ethical questions. Can an AI’s “learning process” be equated with human creativity? Does the creation of intermediate copies for training purposes violate copyright, even if those copies are never heard by the public? And if the AI outputs are sufficiently different from the originals, does that absolve the platforms of liability? The stakes are particularly high given the class-action lawsuits launched by independent artists, who claim their music was also exploited without consent—highlighting that the tension is not just between Big Tech and Big Music, but also with the broader creative community.
The implications of these cases reach far beyond courtrooms in Boston and New York. Should the record labels win, AI platforms may be forced to secure costly licenses or limit functionality—potentially curbing innovation but strengthening protections for artists. If Suno and Udio prevail, the music landscape could be transformed by a wave of algorithmically generated content, with unknown effects on originality, income, and authorship. As these landmark cases unfold, they will test not only the boundaries of copyright law but also society’s evolving definition of creativity in the age of artificial intelligence.
Cybericonic 