AI music generator Suno is preventing again towards copyright infringement claims from impartial artists – with a daring authorized argument that might reshape the AI music debate.
The indie artist class motion lawsuit – filed by Anthony Justice and fifth Wheel Information in June 2025 – particularly targets the affect of AI coaching on the music of impartial artists.
But in a movement to dismiss filed in federal courtroom on August 18, Suno argues that the indie artist lawsuit “fails as a matter of legislation” and must be dismissed.
That’s as a result of, it says, music made on Suno doesn’t really pattern present recordings – no matter what music was used to coach its AI mannequin.
This represents a probably game-changing authorized technique: Suno claims that even when its AI discovered from copyrighted songs, the outputs it generates are solely new sounds that can’t infringe present recordings beneath copyright legislation.
Suno’s submitting, obtained by MBW, could be learn in full right here.
The movement represents the newest salvo in ongoing authorized battles over AI coaching on copyrighted music, with Suno already defending towards a separate lawsuit filed by main labels Common Music Group, Sony Music Leisure, and Warner Music Group in June 2024.
That RIAA-backed lawsuit stays energetic and focuses solely on honest use arguments round AI coaching.
Suno argues indies’ lawsuit introduces legally flawed claims
Suno’s movement argues that the impartial artist case is basically a copycat lawsuit that follows the RIAA case – however provides a problematic new authorized idea.
In contrast to the continuing RIAA case, which focuses solely on whether or not AI coaching practices are authorized, Justice and different impartial artists are attempting to argue that particular songs generated by Suno’s AI (‘outputs’) considerably copy their authentic recordings.
On the coronary heart of Suno’s argument is Part 114(b) of the Copyright Act, which has particular safety guidelines for sound recordings which are completely different from all different kinds of copyrighted works.
“Plaintiffs would want to allege that the output didn’t merely sound related and even equivalent to the unique, however that it really contained a ‘pattern’ from the unique, within the method of a collage… that’s categorically not how Suno’s device works. It solely generates new sounds, somewhat than stitching collectively samples.”
Suno movement to dismiss
Suno’s legal professionals argue: “What [the Copyright Act stipulation] means for this litigation is that in an effort to plead {that a} given output of Suno’s AI device infringed the rights in one of many works-in-suit, Plaintiffs would want to allege that the output didn’t merely sound related and even equivalent to the unique, however that it really contained a ‘pattern’ from the unique, within the method of a collage.”
The submitting emphasizes: “However… that’s categorically not how Suno’s device works. It solely generates new sounds, somewhat than stitching collectively samples.”
It reiterates: “The one means a brand new recording can infringe the rights in a pre-existing one [under the US Copyright Act] is that if it borrows the precise sounds of the unique… that’s not how Suno’s device works in any respect, as Plaintiffs nicely know. No Suno output comprises something like a ‘pattern’ from a recording within the coaching set, so no Suno output can infringe the rights in something within the coaching set, as a matter of legislation.”
This technical distinction types the core of Suno’s daring authorized argument that its AI-generated music can’t legally infringe present sound recordings, no matter how related the outputs may sound to copyrighted works – and no matter what music was used to coach its AI mannequin.
Considerably, Suno’s submitting highlights two latest federal courtroom victories for AI corporations on honest use grounds, noting that “9 days after this Grievance was filed, the primary federal courtroom to deal with that overarching situation selected abstract judgment that utilizing thousands and thousands of copyrighted books to coach a generative AI mannequin was honest use.”
The movement references the June 2025 ruling in Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, the place a California federal decide discovered AI coaching to be protected honest use, adopted by an identical choice in Kadrey v. Meta Platforms.
U.S. Copyright Workplace report cited in authentic lawsuit
The impartial artists’ lawsuit depends closely on a Might 2025 report from the U.S. Copyright Workplace that questions whether or not AI coaching on copyrighted works qualifies as honest use, notably for music technology.
The Copyright Workplace report states that “the honest use doctrine doesn’t excuse unauthorized coaching on expressive works (e.g., music) notably when these works are used to generate substitutional outputs which will exchange the originals within the related market.”
Nonetheless, Suno’s movement to dismiss notes that subsequent courtroom rulings have sided with AI corporations on honest use grounds, probably undermining the Copyright Workplace’s evaluation.
In August 2024, each Suno and Udio argued that their use of copyrighted supplies fell beneath honest use protections whereas acknowledging they skilled their fashions on copyrighted recordings.
The broader authorized battle over AI music technology continues to unfold throughout a number of federal courts, with the result more likely to form how the music business approaches licensing and partnership offers with generative AI platforms going ahead.
Suno can be going through a copyright lawsuit from Germany’s GEMA assortment society, filed in January 2025, including to its worldwide authorized challenges.
Regardless of the controversies, Suno continues to develop its platform, just lately launching V4 with improved audio high quality and naming Timbaland as a strategic advisor.Music Enterprise Worldwide
