A Munich court sided with GEMA in a dispute over AI music training. The decision could impact how generative AI models use copyrighted works. Suno faces demands to halt unlicensed use and disclose earnings.
Media and publishing professionals tracking AI’s impact on copyright law have a new precedent to watch. The Munich Regional Court I has largely ruled in favor of GEMA in its legal battle with Suno, a US-based AI music platform. The court found that Suno used copyrighted works by German artists to train its generative AI without proper licensing, a move the court said must stop. This marks the first time a German court has explicitly stated that protected music cannot be used for AI training without a license.
The case centered on whether Suno could use well-known tracks such as “Atemlos,” “Forever Young,” “Big in Japan,” “Daddy Cool,” “Mambo No. 5,” and “Rasputin” for AI training without the rights holders’ consent. The court determined Suno must cease unlicensed use, provide details on related revenues, and pay damages. However, the ruling is not yet final, as Suno is considering an appeal, according to MDR reporting.
GEMA, the German music rights organization, described the decision as a milestone for creators. CEO Tobias Holzmüller called it a globally significant ruling, emphasizing that AI companies cannot commercially exploit protected works for free. GEMA’s legal counsel, Kai Welp, said the core issue is ensuring composers, lyricists, and publishers share in the revenue generated by AI models trained on their work. GEMA has pursued a similar strategy in other cases, including a 2025 action against OpenAI, which also remains unresolved.
Suno disputes the court’s findings, arguing that the decision is based on a misunderstanding of how generative AI functions. The company maintains its models do not store full music tracks but instead learn statistical patterns from large datasets. Suno also points to differences between German copyright law and the US fair use doctrine, suggesting these legal distinctions are central to its likely appeal. The company, recently valued at over $4 billion following a Series D funding round, faces significant business risk if its model is found unlawful.
The Munich ruling could have broad implications for AI companies beyond music. If upheld by higher courts, providers of generative AI would need to license training data more carefully or negotiate compensation models with rights holders. This would affect not only music generators like Suno but also AI systems trained on text, images, or video. For creators, the decision raises hopes that their works will not be used by AI without compensation. For the AI sector, the pressure grows to develop transparent licensing frameworks. The ongoing legal tension between innovation and intellectual property is likely to intensify as appeals proceed.
Legal disputes over data use and AI are not limited to music. For example, New Jersey recently enacted a law restricting the use of personal data in grocery pricing, reflecting a wider trend of regulatory scrutiny over how companies leverage data for commercial purposes. More details on this development can be found in this report on New Jersey's new data-driven pricing law.
Suno, founded in the United States, has rapidly attracted investor interest, with its valuation surpassing $4 billion after its latest funding round. The company’s AI music generation platform has drawn attention from both the creative industry and regulators, as it seeks to expand its user base and commercial partnerships. Suno’s legal and business strategies in response to the German court’s decision will be closely watched by stakeholders across the AI and media sectors.
