GEMA contre Suno: l'entreprise d'IA ne peut pas utiliser de mélodies sans être sollicitée

A German court has ruled that the unauthorized use of musical compositions by artificial intelligence applications violates copyright law, marking a significant legal precedent in Europe. The Munich Regional Court issued its decision in a high-profile case involving the music rights organization GEMA and the U.S.-based AI company Suno. According to the ruling, Suno must cease using certain protected music works without permission, including during the training of its AI model. The verdict, which is not yet final, could have far-reaching implications for how AI systems interact with copyrighted material. The dispute centered around six specific songs: "Atemlos," "Daddy Cool," "Rasputin," "Big in Japan," "Forever Young," and "Mambo No. 5." These tracks were used by GEMA to test Suno’s AI capabilities. The organization provided the system with the titles, styles, and lyrics of these songs but did not specify melodies, harmonies, or arrangements. GEMA argued that the generated results bore striking similarities to the originals, suggesting that protected elements of the works had been incorporated into the AI model during training. Peter Maffay, a musician who was present at the court hearing, emphasized the importance of protecting creative works from being used without consent. The court rejected Suno's argument that its AI models contained mathematical parameters derived from large datasets rather than direct copies of individual songs. It also dismissed Suno's claim that the U.S. "fair use" doctrine applied to justify the use of the works without authorization. Suno maintains that the specific outputs created by users triggered the generation of songs, and that the company does not store individual songs within its AI models. However, the court found this reasoning insufficient to override the copyright protections afforded to the original composers and publishers represented by GEMA. The ruling requires Suno to provide information about revenues related to the alleged infringements and to pay damages, though the exact amount remains undecided. Legal observers believe the decision sends a clear message to AI companies operating in Europe. Christian Solmecke, a lawyer, noted in his newsletter that the ruling underscores the principle that creators should be compensated for their work, even when it is used as input for AI-generated content. The legal landscape surrounding AI and copyright has evolved rapidly. While Warner Music recently dropped its lawsuit against Suno and signed a licensing agreement, other major labels such as Universal and Sony continue litigation. This divergence highlights the complexity of reaching consensus among rights holders globally. Suno retains the right to appeal the first-instance judgment, leaving the question of whether AI can legally train on copyrighted material unresolved. As the technology continues to advance, courts worldwide will likely face increasing pressure to define the boundaries of fair use in the digital age.