In a significant move for the music industry, the three major music corporations have filed lawsuits against AI music companies Suno and Udio. The suits, initiated by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), allege widespread infringement of copyright as the AI companies trained their generative music models on their past collections.
This legal action, coming just days after Billboard reported the labels’ consideration of such measures, marks a pivotal test case for the intersection of music and AI.
Sony, Universal and Warner in on the Action
The plaintiffs, Sony Music, Warner Music Group, and Universal Music Group, claim that Suno and Udio unlawfully copied their sound recordings to train AI models. These models, in turn, generate music that competes directly with genuine recordings, potentially flooding the market with machine-generated content. The lawsuit asserts that this practice devalues the original works that laid the foundations for the new content.
“Building and operating these AI music services requires the massive ingestion of data to ‘train’ the software models. This involved copying decades of popular sound recordings to produce outputs that mimic genuine human sound recordings,” the labels’ lawyers explained.
The complaints emphasize the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in training these models. Evidence includes AI-generated songs resembling Bruce Springsteen, Michael Jackson, and ABBA. Other outputs were almost identical to well-known tracks such as Mariah Carey’s “All I Want For Christmas Is You” and Green Day’s “American Idiot.”
The Rise of Suno and Udio
Suno and Udio have quickly established themselves as leading figures in the generative AI music sector. Unlike many competitors, these companies can generate complete songs, including instrumentals, lyrics, and vocals, with remarkable precision. Udio even produced an AI-generated hit song, “BBL Drizzy,” which gained traction through a Metro Boomin remix.
Despite their technological advancements, both companies have been tight-lipped about their data sources. Udio co-founder David Ding previously described their training material as simply “good music,” while investor Antonio Rodriguez acknowledged the risk of legal action due to the lack of proper licensing.
Legal Implications and the Future of AI in Music
The lawsuits seek an injunction to stop the companies from continuing to use copyrighted songs for training, as well as damages for past infringements. The major labels argue that Suno and Udio’s practices do not fall under the fair use doctrine, which traditionally covers news reporting and parody, but not the creation of new works through the intermediate use of existing ones.
RIAA CEO Mitch Glazier emphasized the industry’s openness to AI, provided it respects the rights of artists and songwriters. He called for collaboration with developers to build sustainable AI tools that prioritize human creativity. RIAA Chief Legal Officer Ken Doroshow reiterated the need for these lawsuits to uphold ethical standards and lawful development in generative AI.
This legal battle sets a precedent for how AI-generated content will be regulated and highlights the ongoing tension between technological innovation and intellectual property rights. The outcome could shape the future of AI in the music industry, establishing crucial guidelines for responsible development and usage.
It could also open the floodgates to a series of new lawsuits. Time will tell.