Close Menu
Subscribe

AI vs. Music: Inside the Lawsuits and the Growing Backlash Against Machine-Generated Songs

By
AI vs. Music: Inside the Lawsuits and the Growing Backlash Against Machine-Generated Songs

Legal battles and public sentiment are turning AI-generated music into a flashpoint.

The conflict between human artistry and machine learning intensifies as artists and major labels fight artificial intelligence companies in courtrooms across the U.S. and regulators establish new rules overseas. 

These struggles center on one key question: Must AI developers pay to use copyrighted music when training their models? 

Consumer sentiment clearly supports the creators: A recent iHeartMedia study showed 90% of U.S. consumers think knowing a real person created the media they consume matters. 

Furthermore, 75% of consumers do not want AI near their entertainment.

The Copyright Offensive: Indie Artists and Stream Ripping

Independent country singer Tony Justice fired a major shot at AI music platform Suno. Justice filed an amended class action lawsuit, accusing Suno of “stream-ripping” to build its vast training data set. 

Stream ripping involves bypassing protections like encryption and other digital rights management (DRM) systems designed to prevent unauthorized copying. 

Justice alleges Suno circumvented YouTube’s anti-piracy measures to unlawfully download training data tracks.

Justice’s complaint describes Suno’s dataset as “soiled with piracy and misappropriation” and accuses the company of relying on “systematic theft” of music. 

Major record companies Universal Music Group (UMG), Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group filed similar stream-ripping allegations against Suno and Udio just days before Justice’s amended complaint. 

Major labels argue AI models must not scrape millions of copyrighted pieces to train a system that directly competes with the original works.

Plaintiffs against Suno and Udio say AI outputs clearly show illegal copying occurred. Targeted tests demonstrate Suno’s product generating digital music files that mimic features of copyrighted recordings. 

Examples include outputs resembling Chuck Berry’s “Johnny B. Goode” and Michael Bublé’s “Sway.” Suno outputs also reproduced identifiable producer tags, which function as unique identifying sounds for certain artists and producers.

Major label plaintiffs argue AI companies cannot claim “fair use” as a defense. They argue AI products offer imitative machine-generated music, not human creativity or expression. 

The primary purpose of Suno and Udio’s use of copyrighted music is commercial, creating digital music files that serve the same purpose as the original human recordings and substitute for them. 

Udio, for instance, charges subscribers up to $30 per month, with CEO David Ding stating Udio’s goal is creating music that “sounds indistinguishable from music that’s created by professional human producers.”

The Fair Use Test: Anthropic’s Copyright Challenge

The question of whether training AI models constitutes fair use remains central to these legal disputes. 

On October 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee allowed music publishers Universal Music, Concord, and ABKCO to proceed with claims against Anthropic. 

The publishers accuse Anthropic’s chatbot of reproducing copyrighted lyrics without permission. 

This ruling focused on the publishers’ argument that Anthropic enabled or profited from users’ infringement when the chatbot displayed their lyrics upon request. 

This follows Anthropic agreeing to pay a group of authors $1.5 billion to settle a separate class action for allegedly pirating books to train its Claude model.

New Laws and Licensing Efforts Shape the Future

While legal battles wage in U.S. courts, regulators are establishing rules designed to protect creators. 

The Music Modernization Act (MMA) protects pre-1972 sound recordings, a mechanism plaintiffs reference in their complaints against Suno and Udio. 

Globally, the European Parliament approved the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) on Wednesday, March 13, 2024. 

This regulation establishes obligations for General-Purpose AI (GPAI) systems, requiring them to comply with EU copyright law and publish detailed summaries of the content used for training. 

Additionally, artificial or manipulated audio or video content (deepfakes) needs clear labeling.

The industry itself is also moving toward licensed, human-centered models. Spotify is collaborating with Sony, Universal, and Warner music groups to develop “responsible” AI products that respect artists’ copyright. 

Spotify insists copyright is essential, stating that if the music industry fails to take the lead, AI innovation will happen elsewhere “without rights, consent, or compensation.” 

Universal Music Group’s head, Sir Lucian Grainge, confirmed Universal will seek artist consent before licensing their work to an AI company.

Furthermore, digital platforms are implementing transparency measures. YouTube requires creators to disclose when realistic content created with altered or synthetic media could easily pass for real people, places, or events.

The Human Consumer Demands Authenticity

The public is worried about AI’s societal impact, compounding the pressure on AI developers. 

The iHeartMedia “Human” Consumer Study found 82% of respondents worry about AI’s societal impact. Three-quarters of consumers do not want AI involved in their media and entertainment.

Consumers report digital fatigue and crave authenticity in a world dominated by algorithms. Even though Americans generally know what AI is (97% awareness) and 70% use it, distrust remains high. 

Consumers long for deep, meaningful relationships and report that technology cannot replicate the feeling of safety and trust found in the proximity of other humans. 

This desire for authentic connection explains why 9 in 10 consumers believe media should be created by a real person.

The Music Future: Licensed or Litigation?

The legal challenges facing companies like Suno and Udio demonstrate a serious conflict between technological ambition and established copyright law. 

Udio’s CEO admitted AI models can only exist if they train on an almost unimaginably large amount of content, much of which will be subject to copyright. 

As AI music creation tools saturate streaming services with machine-generated content, industry leaders maintain that AI must follow the same licensing rules as every other market participant. 

Future AI success in music depends on adherence to copyright law, compensating creators whose work fuels the technology.

What creators should do now

  • Register your songs and recordings with your local rights societies and the U.S. Copyright Office to strengthen enforcement. 
  • Add robust metadata to files before release, including ISRC, IPI, writer splits, producer tags, and contact info. 
  • Use content-ID and fingerprinting tools on YouTube, Spotify, and distributors to spot clones and unauthorised uploads. 
  • Set Google Alerts and platform notifications for your artist name, song titles, and signature phrases to catch mimicry quickly. 
  • Preserve evidence. If you find an AI clone, screen-record the prompt, result, timestamps, URLs, and keep copies of files. 
  • Update contracts and split sheets to include AI clauses covering voice, likeness, lyric and composition use, and model training. 
  • Publish a clear “no AI training without consent” statement on your website and EPK to set expectations with partners. 
  • Opt out where possible. Use any available platform or model opt-out mechanisms and document your requests. 
  • Channel fans to official profiles and verified stores so your real work is easy to find and impersonation is easier to flag. 
  • Choose distribution partners that offer takedown support, rights detection, and fast escalation paths. 
  • When you experiment with AI, label it transparently and keep stems and prompts private to avoid misuse. 
  • Speak to a music-savvy lawyer before sending demand letters or filing claims, especially across U.S. and EU jurisdictions.

You might also like:

RELATED