The Munich Regional Court is scheduled to deliver a landmark verdict on July 31 in a copyright lawsuit brought by GEMA against US-based AI music generator Suno AI. According to GEMA CEO Tobias Holzmüller, the case tests whether traditional copyright law applies to generative AI training and output, centering on allegations that Suno trained its models on copyrighted music without licenses or compensation.
GEMA v. Suno AI Copyright Lawsuit Details
Filed in January 2025, the lawsuit represents one of the first major global tests regarding AI music training and output. GEMA, Germany’s music collecting society, argues that Suno commercially benefits from copyrighted works without paying rights holders. Tobias Holzmüller described Suno as the largest and most successful AI music model, stating that the company pursues a much more aggressive business strategy than its competitors. Unlike a previous GEMA lawsuit against OpenAI regarding song lyrics, the current Munich proceedings focus on entire musical pieces.
How GEMA Demonstrated AI Similarity in Court
During court proceedings, GEMA demonstrated how Suno AI generates tracks closely resembling existing copyrighted songs. According to court presentations, plaintiffs prompted the system with original lyrics from popular tracks like Alphaville’s “Forever Young,” Lou Bega’s “Mambo No. 5,” Boney M.’s “Daddy Cool,” Modern Talking’s “Cheri Cheri Lady,” and Kristina Bach’s “Atemlos durch die Nacht” (popularized by Helene Fischer). By providing original lyrics along with desired musical styles and titles—without specifying melodies or rhythms—the AI produced songs very similar to the original works. Suno admits that these original songs were used to train its AI model.
Legal Arguments on AI Training and Fair Use
AI companies argue that data ingestion for training falls under “fair use” in the US and the “text and data mining exception” in the EU. However, Martin Senftleben, professor of intellectual property law at the Amsterdam Law School, notes that this lawsuit bridges a crucial gap. According to Senftleben, GEMA’s focus on output similarities connects the AI training stage directly to market harm at the output level. Furthermore, Senftleben emphasizes that collecting societies bring inclusivity, allowing remuneration to reach a broad group of rights holders beyond high-profile artists, as GEMA represents over 95,000 composers, songwriters, and publishers in Germany, alongside more than 2 million worldwide.
Did you know? Users across Suno’s global platform generate roughly 7 million songs every day, with about 75,000 of those tracks ending up on streaming services daily, according to GEMA data.
Economic Impact on Human Musicians and Creators
Tobias Holzmüller stated that human inspiration is incomparable to a machine digesting millions of sound files in split seconds, calling the comparison to human brains “completely ridiculous” and illogical. GEMA asserts that free-of-charge AI sounds threaten to outcompete human music in commercial environments like movie scores and social media. To build a sustainable ecosystem, Holzmüller advocates for putting a price tag on AI output through licensing negotiations, creating a level playing field where human music can continue to thrive.
Frequently Asked Questions
When will the Munich Regional Court deliver its verdict in GEMA v. Suno AI?
The Munich Regional Court is expected to deliver its verdict on July 31.
What does GEMA represent in this lawsuit?
GEMA represents more than 95,000 composers, songwriters, and music publishers in Germany, and over 2 million rights holders globally.
How does Suno AI generate music?
Suno AI’s platform generates structured tracks—including lyrics, vocals, and instrumentation—in under a minute based on simple text prompts describing a user’s desired mood, style, or genre.
What was the outcome of GEMA’s previous lawsuit against OpenAI?
Last year, the Munich Regional Court found that OpenAI unlawfully trained its AI models on copyrighted lyrics and reproduced them via ChatGPT. OpenAI was ordered to cease and desist, disclose information, and pay damages, though the ruling is currently non-final as OpenAI pursues an appeal.
What are your thoughts on AI-generated music and artist compensation? Join the conversation by leaving a comment below, share this article with fellow music creators, and subscribe to our newsletter for ongoing legal updates in the creative industries.