AI music generator Suno is preventing again in opposition to copyright infringement claims from impartial artists – with a daring authorized argument that would reshape the AI music debate.
The indie artist class motion lawsuit – filed by Anthony Justice and fifth Wheel Data in June 2025 – particularly targets the impression 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 regulation” and ought to 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 doubtlessly game-changing authorized technique: Suno claims that even when its AI realized from copyrighted songs, the outputs it generates are fully new sounds that can’t infringe present recordings beneath copyright regulation.
Suno’s submitting, obtained by MBW, may 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 in opposition to 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 lively 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 continued 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 unique 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 sorts of copyrighted works.
“Plaintiffs would want to allege that the output didn’t merely sound comparable and even similar 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 instrument works. It solely generates new sounds, quite than stitching collectively samples.”
Suno movement to dismiss
Suno’s legal professionals argue: “What [the Copyright Act stipulation] means for this litigation is that with the intention to plead {that a} given output of Suno’s AI instrument infringed the rights in one of many works-in-suit, Plaintiffs would want to allege that the output didn’t merely sound comparable and even similar 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 instrument works. It solely generates new sounds, quite than stitching collectively samples.”
It reiterates: “The one manner 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 instrument works in any respect, as Plaintiffs properly know. No Suno output incorporates 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 regulation.”
This technical distinction kinds the core of Suno’s daring authorized argument that its AI-generated music can not legally infringe present sound recordings, no matter how comparable 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 firms on honest use grounds, noting that “9 days after this Grievance was filed, the primary federal courtroom to handle that overarching situation selected abstract judgment that utilizing tens of millions 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 determination in Kadrey v. Meta Platforms.
U.S. Copyright Workplace report cited in unique lawsuit
The impartial artists’ lawsuit depends closely on a Could 2025 report from the U.S. Copyright Workplace that questions whether or not AI coaching on copyrighted works qualifies as honest use, significantly for music era.
The Copyright Workplace report states that “the honest use doctrine doesn’t excuse unauthorized coaching on expressive works (e.g., music) significantly when these works are used to generate substitutional outputs which will change the originals within the related market.”
Nevertheless, Suno’s movement to dismiss notes that subsequent courtroom rulings have sided with AI firms on honest use grounds, doubtlessly 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 era continues to unfold throughout a number of federal courts, with the result prone to form how the music business approaches licensing and partnership offers with generative AI platforms going ahead.
Suno can be dealing with 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
