Historic ruling against Suno for illegal use of music: Why the case could be significant for Danish artists
Can AI services train on your music without paying? A new ruling says no. A German court has established that the AI music service Suno has infringed copyright by training on and reproducing protected musical works without a licence. The ruling could have implications for Koda’s Danish case against the same service, but it does not mean that Danish artists will automatically be paid compensation now.
By Julie Westh Nielsen
The ruling establishes that Suno, in the specific case, infringed the copyright to six musical works. The court found that the works had been copied during training, memorised in Suno's models and reproduced in the service's output without a licence.
The Regional Court of Munich ruled on 31 July in a case between Suno and the German collecting society GEMA, which, like KODA, manages the copyright of music creators.
According to Jens Skov Thomsen, Head of Secretariat and Legal Affairs at the Danish Artists' Union, the ruling is an important step towards establishing that AI training does not take place in a rights-free zone.
“The crucial point is that the court does not accept that an AI company can freely build a commercial service on music that other people have created. When music is part of the development of the product, rights must be respected, and agreements must be made regarding use and payment,” says Jens Skov Thomsen.
What is the case about?
Suno is an AI service that can generate musical tracks based on user text descriptions. The dispute is fundamentally about what can be done with copyright-protected music when it is used to develop such a service.
GEMA took legal action regarding six specific musical works that the organisation believed Suno had used without permission. The court found that the works had been copied during training and memorised in Suno's AI models. According to the court, Suno had retrieved and copied the music from YouTube using stream-ripping, a method where content from a streaming service is saved as a permanent file.
Suno denied that the models store musical works and argued instead that they learn mathematical and statistical patterns from the training material. The company also referred to the US rule of “fair use”, which under certain conditions can permit the use of copyrighted material without an agreement with the rightsholder.
The court rejected the arguments in the specific case. It considered that the similarities between the six works and Suno's output could not have arisen by chance, and that the works had been memorised in the models in a way that protected elements could be reproduced again.
“It is important that the court in this specific case rejects Suno’s fair use argument. If a commercial AI service can use artists” work and subsequently reproduce recognisable parts of the works without permission or payment, it challenges the very foundation of copyright law. Therefore, we are pleased that the court is drawing a clear line here,” says Jens Skov Thomsen.
Suno has told Reuters that the company disagrees with the ruling and is examining its options, including a possible appeal.
Koda has also sued Suno
The German decision is also relevant in Denmark.
In November 2025, Koda filed a lawsuit against Suno on behalf of Danish music creators. It was the first time a Danish rights organisation had sued an AI service for copyright infringement.
Read more about Koda's lawsuit against Suno here.
Koda's case has not yet been decided and a Danish court is not bound by the ruling from Munich. However, Koda assesses that the judgment could have great significance for Koda's own lawsuit and other similar cases.
What does the German ruling mean for the industry and for you as an artist?
The ruling does not mean that Danish artists or other rightsholders will automatically be paid money by Suno.
In the longer term, however, the ruling could help to put pressure on AI companies to enter into licensing agreements with the rights organisations. That type of agreement can create a system where the use is approved through the rights holders' organisations, and where artists and other rights holders can receive payment according to the distribution rules of the agreements when their works are used to develop AI.
“The ruling does not mean that all AI training is now automatically illegal, or that Danish music creators will receive compensation straight away. But it strengthens the position of rights holders in cases where protected works have been copied during training, memorised in a model and reproduced in output without a licence, says Jens Skov Thomsen.
The German case involved six specific musical works, and Koda's Danish case is still to be tried in a Danish court.
The judgement does not protect all of the artist's rights
The Suno case is about the copyright of six specific musical works. But an artist can have multiple roles and thus several different rights in the same release.
“Many artists wear multiple hats and may have written the song, produced the recording, and performed on it themselves. The German case is about the copyright to six specific musical works. It does not decide questions regarding the rights to the sound recording itself or the imitation of an artist’s voice, face, or identity,” says Jens Skov Thomsen.
An AI service can therefore affect an artist in various ways. Which rights and rules become relevant depend on the specific use.
The Danish Musicians' Union has previously stressed that artists must have a real say when their voices, performances, works or identities are used in connection with AI. The union also urges artists to be particularly attentive to AI clauses in contracts, to seek legal advice and to submit everything relating to AI for negotiation through the union.
“As an artist, you should gain clarity on which rights you hold yourself and which you may have transferred through past agreements. Moving forward, you need to be particularly careful with broad wording that gives others the right to use your voice, recordings, performance or identity for AI purposes, without the usage, payment and consequences being clearly defined. For this very reason, we have taken over the negotiation of AI exploitation for our members, so no one stands alone, says Jens Skov Thomsen.
Those don't solve the problem
Although the ruling may turn out to be important, it does not resolve all the conflicts between generative AI and the music industry.
The decision can still be appealed. Koda's Danish case has not been settled either, and there is still no unified international system that ensures artists and music creators get permission, transparency and payment when music is used for AI training.
Koda therefore believes that there is a need for both court cases, political regulation and a functioning market for licensing agreements between AI companies and the music industry's rights holders.
Danish Artist's Union is working for collective AI agreements
The Suno ruling is an extension of the Danish Artist Union's work to ensure that the use of artists' rights for AI takes place under clear conditions and with remuneration.
Along with the Danish Musicians' Union, the Danish Artist Union has reserved rights on behalf of its members in relation to record labels and is working to ensure that the use of artists' performances and recordings for generative AI is negotiated collectively rather than through individual AI agreements.
For the individual member, this also means concrete advice. If you encounter AI wording in a contract or are in doubt about how your rights may be used, you can have the agreement evaluated. The Danish Artists' Union's lawyers advise on, among other things, which rights you are transferring, how they can be used, and what the agreement means for your influence and finances.
If you have questions about AI and your rights, you can contact the legal department at jura@artisten.dk.
SUMMARY
- A German court has largely ruled in favour of GEMA in a case against the AI music service Suno. The court found that six protected musical works had been copied during training, memorised in Suno's models and could be recognised in the service's output.
- Koda has also sued Suno in Denmark. The German ruling does not determine the Danish case, but Koda assesses that it could have significance for both their own lawsuit and other similar cases.
- The ruling does not automatically grant Danish artists compensation, but strengthens rights holders' position in the work for licences and payment. At the same time, DAF is working to ensure that the use of artists' performances and recordings for generative AI is negotiated collectively.
