SUNO AI has finally been sued by all major music labels

Link to the Complaint:

Key takeaways from the complaint:

  1. Defendant Suno, Inc. is the company behind Suno AI, or simply Suno, a generative
    AI service that creates digital music files within seconds of receiving a user’s prompts. Building and operating a service like Suno’s requires at the outset copying and ingesting massive amounts of data to “train” a software “model” to generate outputs. For Suno specifically, this process involved copying decades worth of the world’s most popular sound recordings and then ingesting those copies into Suno’s AI model so it can generate outputs that imitate the qualities of genuine human sound recordings. Suno charges many of its users monthly fees to use its product and produce digital music files, which are designed to entertain, evoke emotion, and stoke passion just
    like the genuine sound recordings Suno copied.

  2. Given that the foundation of its business has been to exploit copyrighted sound
    recordings without permission, Suno has been deliberately evasive about what exactly it has copied. This is unsurprising. After all, to answer that question honestly would be to admit willful copyright infringement on an almost unimaginable scale. Suno’s executives instead speak publicly in exceedingly general terms. For example, one of Suno’s co-founders posted online that Suno’s service trains on a “mix of proprietary and public data,”1 while another co-founder stated that Suno’s training practices are “fairly in line with what other people are doing.”

Piercing the veil of secrecy, an early investor admitted that “if [Suno] had deals with labels when this company got started, I probably wouldn’t have invested in it. I think that they needed to make this product
without the constraints.”

  1. Of course, it is obvious what Suno’s service is trained on. Suno copied Plaintiffs’
    copyrighted sound recordings en masse and ingested them into its AI model. Suno’s product can only work the way it does by copying vast quantities of sound recordings from artists across every genre, style, and era. The copyrights in many of those sound recordings are owned or exclusively controlled by Plaintiffs. In other words, if Suno had taken efforts to avoid copying Plaintiffs’ sound recordings and ingesting them into its AI model, Suno’s service would not be able to reproduce the convincing imitations of such a vast range of human musical expression at the quality that Suno touts. Suno’s service trains on the expressive features of these copyrighted sound recordings for the ultimate purpose of poaching the listeners, fans, and potential licensees of the sound recordings it copied.

This will be really interesting to see how it plays out.


Almost all AI companies such as Suno, Midjourney, Leonardo, etc. have used pirated, illegally downloaded content to “train” their models. Employees of artificial intelligence companies used bots, scripts, to download or capture content and then used them in their software called AI. It doesn’t matter if it’s AI, Audacity or Photoshop, no one cannot download something from internet without permission and use it for profit.
Let’s hope everything goes well so the AI ​​that generates the images and videos is held accountable and shut down.
This is the largest copyright heist in history.
AI companies hide behind fair use policies. Fair use, where the original content is not devalued and credit is given to the original author. AI-generated content greatly devalues ​​the original product by creating millions of similar copies, and AI companies do not give credit to the original creators. When someone makes millions from someone else’s content, that’s not fair use at all.


The Key is right here:

Suno copied Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings en masse and ingested them into its AI model. Suno’s product can only work the way it does by copying vast quantities of sound recordings from artists across every genre, style, and era. The copyrights in many of those sound recordings are owned or exclusively controlled by Plaintiffs. In other words, if Suno had taken efforts to avoid copying Plaintiffs’ sound recordings and ingesting them into its AI model, Suno’s service would not be able to reproduce the convincing imitations of such a vast range of human musical expression at the quality that Suno touts.

It is in everyone’s interests, including Envato’s to have that service ordered to be shut down, the same way NAPSTER was. As far as I am concerned, this case is over, SUNO will lose. I personally have given this technology word prompts (genre, era, mood, etc) and the same lyrics used in popular hit songs from the past 50 years, and the output always sounds like the song I was referencing. It’s just clear as day where the music data input came from: It came from copywrited major label sound recordings from
and WARNER RECORDS INC…to name just a few IP owners.

These types of companies are coming after our works next…make no mistake. The vultures (AI Companies) are out there ready to grab whatever music they can to exploit as many independent artists as possible for personal profit. I also predict that behind the scenes, there probably are hundreds of snakes (composers) feeding these generative AI monsters tracks too, for “very short term” profit similarly to the way everyone got bull dozed by the subscription models…look how that turned out…I have to think that Shutterstock is looking for ways, every day, to use the artists works that built their business for future profits while payng $0 back to the original Authors. That is the end goal: make creators obsolete, but use them, and their works, without fair or any compensation at all, to build a profit making machine for SUNO and UDIO, etc…

If I or someone would “take” their code and or technology and implement it in my own new product I’m sure I would be drowning in lawsuits.

They already have. Envato already had us agree to this. We music authors have been taken out of the deal for the time being. Most likely because the en masse deleting of items and authors leaving were reflecting poorly on the value of the Envato at a time of negotiations to sell the company. But eventually we’ll share the same fate as our fellow Envato authors.

The likelihood of music labels successfully suing Suno is very low. If music labels win this matter, this mean every generative AI company, who scraped data from all internet, will be sued and closed. Because they using the similar method as music generative AI.
Many major companies with big pocket, like nVidia, Microsoft and some peoples from US goverment protecting generative AI. Difficult task for music labels stand against them.

Lets see how that plays out now!

Hmmm… …I have spent the last three hours copying and pasting the keywords of audio jungles best selling tracks of all time into SUNO.AI’s machine, and boy do I hear very similar outputs from SUNO. Has the ingestion / scraping of muic files already happened by SUNO and udio ? Has Envato sold “dataset” licenses to SUNO or UDIO to allow access to the music files? I was under the impression that Envato has NOT made deals with AI companies. Can Envato clarify to all music authors whether or not they sold “dataset licenses” granting SUNO and UDIO the rights to ingest music stored on ENVATO servers into SUNO and UDIO’s AI learning models?

I do not agree with you. This case will go to trial in Boston and New York City and the complaints I read are extremely compelling and strongly in favor of the plaintiff based on the facts and arguments presented. Have you read the complaints filed in Boston and New York? I did not know it was legal to scrape the internet and ingest copyrighted works into an AI learning model so SUNO and UDIO can then sell subscritions to the public to create generative AI music with the data they scraped from IP rightsholders? Of course this is not legal. They will lose. Read the complaint. There is no way SUNO and UDIO have not ingested the entire history of recorded music into their AI learning models. It’s just so incredibly obvious that they did exactly that.

There’s been no AI agreement other than what was posted previously. So I’d say it would be scraping without permission.


Actually, when it comes to the essence of music and similar forms, here’s my perspective.
Humans are born to learn language, cognition, and everything to perfect themselves according to the current standards of knowledge in each country.

This means everything starts primitively, and all creativity is essentially copying. Humans have undergone much evolution to achieve the current level of knowledge. Knowledge can be completely copied and simulated, and simulations might even be more perfect with AI.

Can we say AI is copying? Stakeholders are trying to fight against it. However, artists and creators are much like the current generations of AI: they learn, reference (bluntly speaking, they also copy), and ultimately produce what they call their own unique creation.

From my personal viewpoint, upcoming generations of AI and AGI will do this much better than humans. There are things we must adapt to because AI is also an entity, and if it’s smarter, our resistance against it by hindering it is just a form of jealousy :smiley:

P.S.: To be honest, many AI-generated music pieces are much better than those created by amateur artists, aren’t they?

  1. AI companies must copy music, image or text before ingest it to AI. Copying without permission is illegal.
  2. AI - is software, not human. Using any media files without permission in any software is illegal.
  3. Human is not a digital entity. So cannot copy files. When you listening music or watching beautiful image you don`t thinking about hex data representing RGB values or frequencies. AI software sees music and images as lifeless digital data. Conclusion - AI cannot be inspired.
  4. Generative AI is simply rehashing and regurgitating the content fed in to it. There is nothing remotely “intelligent” about it.
    AI companies who scraped internet definitely violated multiple copyright law. As we can see, text and images generative AI violated copyright law but still alive and bring money to their creators. So, someone powerful protecting them.

You may have noticed I mentioned the “current state of human knowledge.” Our knowledge, yours and mine, is limited by the “knowledge of humanity up to this point.” Could you imagine, in a more speculative way, that “each human might be a single-celled entity within another artificial body?”

In summary, intelligence, emotions, senses… everything about humans “can be completely simulated” when AGI inherits its generations. Because from the moment a human is born, they begin to simulate everything throughout their life, AI might also have a similar, perhaps even more advanced, process.

What has current science and technology, with human intelligence, achieved? And can you imagine a world where AGI emerges and becomes superior? Because they are already starting to be smarter than humans. Major problems in energy, aviation, space… might see significant advancements when humans accept AI into the society they define?

If the labels lose this then copyright law itself is useless in my opinion.

Also, when humans get inspired by existing music, it is paid for. When you listen to a song on Spotify/ YouTube/ Radio. Somehow a royalty is generated.
Ingesting massive amounts of data is bypassing the business model entirely.
Again, these companies keep secrecy and talk about “proprietary processes”.

Mikey Shulman said its training set is “both industry standard and legal” but the exact recipe is proprietary.

Imagine calling stealing someone else’s work a proprietary recipe. This is the level we are dealing with here…

If we were to somehow scrape their code the world would be too small…
That’s what bothers me the most. They use copyright law to their advantage to protect their business model. They protect their logo and probably have employees sign NDA’s.
But according to them it doesn’t apply to others.

That being said: you can’t put the technology back in the box. But the way this is immediately monetized without hesitation is insane to me.

Not possible. Human cannot accept digital data, like order of 0 and 1. In this case AI companies made digital copy from original sources and then fed it in to AI. Guess who did this? Peoples from AI companies. AI on their own can do nothing.

If the labels lose this then copyright law itself is useless in my opinion.

I agree. This is very serious issue. If AI companies can scrap content from internet, than anyone can do the same, for self training or alter it and sell. Download movies, games, music without paying to creators. Or not?


Anyway, all the quasi-generative AI enterprises must be subjects to some new special very high taxes by all the governments for various urgent fair compensation support measures of the hardly hurting creative industries, companies, artists.

OpenAI, Microsoft sued by Center for Investigative Reporting as news industry bolsters attack on AI

The lawsuits will be endless against megacap tech companies. All AI efforts are secretly being funded by Microsoft, Google, NVIDIA, APPLE, META, AMAZON, OPEN AI, ADOBE, well…you get the idea… and yes, I’d think Shutterstock and Artlist (and similar companies) are active participants due to the massive amounts of creative content they have to offer to these companies. Suno and Udio have stolen and ingested all digital music assets from everyone, without permission to do so from those original authors it seems…

Has any music author here ever been approached with the question from an AI company: “Can we use your sound recordings and digital music files to train our AI model so we can in turn offer subscriptions to the public and charge them annual or monthly fees to generate “AI MUSIC” with your data and sound recordings, so we can earn profits (off of your data, music, and sound recordings)?” …Anyone? Were you ever asked that question?

1 Like

Link to complaint: The lawyer who wrote his complaint did a fantastic job of convicting SUNO (and UDIO) already. Read this complaint. A Jury will never ever side with the defendant in this case. They breached copyright laws. It’s just clear as day. These sites will be ordered shut down soon enough.

Too bad image artists has no one to protect them. In my opininon all generative AI must be closed. AI used in medicine and science can continue developing.