A German court has ruled that the AI music generator Suno violated copyright, marking a first for Europe.

      The Munich Regional Court determined that Suno trained on songs represented by GEMA without authorization and reproduced those works, marking one of Europe’s initial binding judgments regarding AI-generated music. The German court concluded that Suno, a leading AI music generator, violated copyright laws by using protected songs without permission, representing one of Europe’s first authoritative decisions on music created by AI. On July 31, the Munich Regional Court found that Suno did not have the right to process the works of artists represented by GEMA, Germany's official licensing organization, after it was shown that its system had memorized and reproduced their songs. This case is pivotal as it probes the foundational aspects of how such tools are developed, especially considering prior reports indicating that Suno was trained on over two million gathered songs.

      GEMA presented a compelling argument, which was difficult to refute. In court, it showcased side-by-side comparisons of Suno’s outputs with well-known tracks, contending that the AI had reproduced distinguishable melodies, harmonies, and rhythms from the originals. The examples were striking, featuring songs such as “Forever Young,” “Mambo No. 5,” and “Daddy Cool,” recognizable hits whose characteristics, GEMA claimed, appeared in Suno’s generated content.

      The court concurred with the central argument. It determined that Suno had memorized and reproduced six songs represented by GEMA during its training, and that doing so without a license violated the rights of the copyright holders. The remedy imposes a significant obligation. Suno must provide details regarding the revenue it generated from the infringement to allow for the calculation of damages, a sum that the court has not yet specified.

      The ruling has immediate implications. Under German law, a first-instance judgment can be enforced even if an appeal is still pending, meaning GEMA could pursue injunctions against Suno’s operations in Europe without lengthy delays. This aspect contributes to its significance, as legal experts view it as one of the first binding European rulings on whether AI music training requires permission, a topic that has loomed over the industry since AI generators became popular.

      Suno vigorously contested the case. In the weeks leading up to the verdict, the company submitted new legal arguments and even attempted to have the presiding judge removed, an unusually bold move that ultimately did not succeed. The implications for Suno are considerable. The Massachusetts-based startup was valued at approximately $5.4 billion in a funding round earlier this year, a valuation based on the business model the court has now deemed illegal in Germany.

      Suno is not the sole AI music company facing litigation. Competitor Udio is dealing with its own legal challenges, and Sony has filed a second lawsuit against Udio concerning 30,000 songs, seeking billions as record labels shift from warnings to full-fledged litigation. Some of this pressure has already resulted in agreements. Both Suno and Udio have reached settlements with Warner Music, and Udio has come to terms with Universal, indicating that licensing, rather than just court proceedings, may shape the ultimate resolution.

      The industry is exploring an alternative approach as well. Spotify and Universal have signed a licensing agreement for AI covers and remixes, aiming to create a legal market for generative music rather than contesting every usage in court. The Munich court has a history in this area. Last year, it ruled that OpenAI's ChatGPT had infringed copyright by reproducing German song lyrics, establishing the city as an unexpected focal point for AI-related copyright law.

      For GEMA, the reasoning is straightforward. It maintains that training on copyrighted music necessitates permission from the copyright owners, unequivocally, and the recent ruling provides the strongest legal support for that position to date. The broader struggle is far from resolved. The decision is open to appeal, U.S. lawsuits are progressing on their own timelines, and the music industry is simultaneously managing AI agreements and fraud crises, yet Europe now has a clear precedent.

      How Suno proceeds next will indicate much. It can choose to appeal, settle, or limit its European service, and each decision will send a message to other AI firms regarding the cost of developing first and obtaining licenses later.