The most prominent copyright lawsuit against Generative AI (GAI) to date dropped yesterday when the major record labels filed complaints against developers Suno and Udio in the District of Massachusetts and the Southern District of New York respectively. This is going to be one to watch, not just because of the size of the plaintiffs and the potential for significant damages, but because the complaints, in my view, present an intriguing combination of the legal questions addressed in most, if not all, of the other lawsuits filed against GAI companies.
For instance, in NY Times v. Open AI and Concord et al. v. Anthropic, both plaintiffs make a compelling prima facie case for copyright infringement by presenting large bodies of evidence showing either literal copies or substantially similar material output by the defendants’ systems. This is distinct from some of the visual artists’ lawsuits against Gen AIs like Midjourney and DALL-E where the allegations of infringement entail more inference than direct evidence of specific works copied. Not that the visual GAIs don’t output literal copies of protected works—they do—but I do not believe a plaintiff has yet filed suit with a body of that kind of evidence.
Interestingly, the evidence presented by the record labels to show that their protected sound recordings were used to train Suno and Udio encompasses a combination of substantially similar copies in the outputs, a measure of inference, and a number of self-incriminating statements by the defendants themselves. This includes the unwise assertion made by every GAI developer that machine learning (ML) is fair use, but I’ll come back to that.
Regarding direct evidence, both complaints cite several examples whereby, with a few general prompts, the systems will output music that is substantially similar to famous songs. “These similarities are further reflected in the side-by-side transcriptions of the musical scores for the Suno file and the original recording. These similarities are only possible because Suno copied the Copyrighted Recordings that contain these musical elements,” the Suno complaint states.
See cover image from plaintiffs’ transcriptions. “Red markings in the transcriptions indicate notes that are the same as the original in both pitch and rhythm, where orange markings indicate notes that use either the pitch or the rhythm of the original, but not both.”
Akin to the NYT and Anthropic cases, the logic holds that if this material comes out of the system, then it was obviously fed into the system. More broadly, inference tells us that millions of sound recordings were used in ML to enable Suno and Udio to so effectively produce a wide variety of music in so many styles. And that’s where the self-incriminating comments come into play.
As has been reported elsewhere, Suno investor Antonio Rodriguez, is quoted in the complaint as saying, “…honestly, if we had deals with labels when this company got started, I probably wouldn’t have invested in it. I think they needed to make this product without the constraints.” Yikes. Notwithstanding the questionable claim that copyright infringement is necessary for GAI development, Rodriguez’s statement reads as an admission that of course they willfully infringed copyrights—that he went into the venture knowing he would help finance litigation.
Similarly, Udio’s CEO David Ding is quoted saying that his system needs to “train on a large amount of publicly-available and high-quality music…[the] best quality music that’s out there…obtained from the internet.” As the complaints note, “publicly-available” is a term the GAI companies like to use in PR statements, but this is not synonymous with the “public domain.” Most in-copyright works are publicly available, and Ding’s statement that sound recordings were “obtained from the internet” is, again, acknowledging that unlicensed copying—and a lot of it—occurred for the purpose of training the Udio model.
All Eyes on Fair Use
When the first Gen AI lawsuits dropped, I thought the developers might try harder to claim that no copyright infringement occurs on the basis that what’s happening inside their machines does not “copy” protected works. All that nonsense about machines “learning” the same way human artists learn, when combined with an invisible or complex process, seemed to be leading toward that argument in court. Instead, whether the evidence of copying is too obvious, or the developers are too hubristic, it appears—certainly in this case—that the Gen AI companies are stipulating to a valid infringement claim and jumping straight to a presumption that they will be rescued by a fair use defense.
As mentioned above, and as the complaints note, the assertion of fair use is itself a tacit admission that a prima facie claim of copyright infringement exists. While it will only be fun to unpack the real fair use responses when Suno and Udio submit those documents to the courts, the labels’ complaints already present rationales as to why all four factors disfavor a finding of fair use. Going forward, the fair use discussion will emphasize factors one and four—the purpose of the use and the potential market harm to the works used, respectively.
The most compelling discussion will address the extent to which the courts find that Suno and Udio’s use of the works serve a “transformative” purpose under factor one. Not only will this consideration have major implications for every Gen AI developer, but it will also be the ideological hill on which the pro and anti-copyright forces will clash. The ongoing (if repetitive) debate that pits alleged progress against allegedly outdated copyright law may be won or lost on the transformative test in these cases.
On that subject, both complaints use the language “far from transformative” to describe Suno and Udio—and I agree. Just because Gen AI is novel, or even impressive, these products do not make transformative use of protected works in a manner that furthers the purpose of copyright law, which is to foster, not replace, human authorship. This essential consideration for finding transformativeness is tacitly acknowledged by the Gen AI lobbyists and cheerleaders who insist that “copyright law must change” in for the sake of Gen AI. If the law “has to change,” then clearly, the law does not support the conduct at issue. These and other contradictions will be exciting to follow as these cases proceed.
