Training Data

AI Training Data and Music Rights

Understanding the legal debates around AI models trained on copyrighted music. The lawsuits, arguments, and what it all means for creators.

Legal Desk10 min readDecember 2024

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only. Ongoing litigation means the legal landscape is actively changing. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal advice.

The Core Issue

AI music generators like Suno and Udio learned to create music by analyzing millions of existing songs. The question at the heart of multiple lawsuits: was this legal?

Record labels and artists argue that using copyrighted music to train AI—without permission or payment—is massive copyright infringement. AI companies counter that training is transformative fair use, similar to how a human musician learns by listening to existing music.

The outcome of these cases will shape the future of AI music—and potentially all generative AI.

Major Lawsuits

RIAA vs. Suno & Udio (2024)

The Recording Industry Association of America (representing Universal, Sony, and Warner) sued both major AI music platforms. The labels claim the platforms committed "mass copyright infringement" by training on copyrighted recordings without licenses. They're seeking damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed.

Authors Guild vs. OpenAI

While not music-specific, this lawsuit against ChatGPT's maker addresses similar training data issues. Its outcome could influence music AI cases.

Getty Images vs. Stability AI

This image AI case is further along in courts and may set precedents for music AI training data disputes.

Stay informed: Get weekly AI music updates in your inbox.

Subscribe

Both Sides

Rights Holders' Arguments

  • Reproduction: Copying songs into training datasets requires a license
  • Not transformative: AI creates competing products, not commentary or criticism
  • Market harm: AI music directly competes with and replaces human-made music
  • No consent: Artists never agreed to have their work used this way

AI Companies' Arguments

  • Fair use: Training is transformative—AI learns patterns, doesn't copy songs
  • Precedent: Search engines also copy content for indexing (ruled fair use)
  • No substantial copying: Outputs don't reproduce specific copyrighted works
  • Innovation: Restrictive rulings would hamper beneficial AI development

What This Means for Creators

While these cases work through the courts, here's what creators should know:

  • 1You can still use AI music tools. Lawsuits target the companies, not users. Using Suno or Udio isn't illegal.
  • 2Outcomes are uncertain. These cases could take years and go either way. Plan accordingly.
  • 3Licensing deals may emerge. Some AI companies are pursuing legitimate music licenses (e.g., Google with Universal).
  • 4Watch for legislation. Congress may pass laws addressing AI training before courts rule.

What's Next

Several possible outcomes could reshape the industry:

  • AI companies win: Training on copyrighted content is fair use. Status quo continues.
  • Rights holders win: AI companies must license training data or pay damages. Costs passed to users or services shut down.
  • Negotiated settlement: Industry-wide licensing scheme emerges, similar to how streaming services pay royalties.
  • Legislative action: Congress creates new rules specifically for AI training.

Never Miss an Update

Get the latest AI music news, guides, and insights delivered weekly.

Subscribe Free

Official Sources

Official study on AI and copyright issues

Recording Industry Association of America

AI-assisted content, reviewed by our editorial team.

Back to Legal