German court ruling against Suno sends global warning

Friday’s ruling by the Munich Regional Court against AI music generator Suno is a watershed moment for creators everywhere, including in Australia and New Zealand

It proves AI developers cannot outrun copyright law by hiding behind borders

"Munich has called it what it is. Not innovation. Theft."

APRA AMCOS has applauded Friday’s ruling by the Munich Regional Court against AI music generator Suno, calling it a watershed moment for creators everywhere, including in Australia and New Zealand.

The court found in favour of German collecting society GEMA, ruling that Suno is fully liable for training its AI system on copyrighted music, storing those works and reproducing them without a licence or payment to rightsholders. In a first for any court globally, the Munich court also found that Suno could not rely on the US "fair use" doctrine to shield its training activities, even though that training took place in the United States.

The court ruling granted almost all of GEMA's claims for an injunction, disclosure of information and damages, and holding Suno liable as a direct infringer. Suno has been ordered to cease and desist, disclose its revenue and pay damages, the quantum of which is yet to be determined.

The court found it had international jurisdiction on the basis that Suno's output, retrievable in Germany, itself constitutes an act of infringement. Critically, the court found that memorisation of a work inside an AI model amounts to reproduction as the work remains perceptible through simple prompts.

The Court found no fair use under US law, because the reproducibility of the original works meant there was no transformative new work, and the AI output had a substitutive effect on the market for the originals. The court rejected a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The judgment is not final and can be appealed.

The decision confirms what songwriters and composers have argued from the outset of the AI boom: that the unlicensed use of creative works to build billion-dollar commercial AI products is not innovation it is infringement, wherever in the world it takes place.

The ruling is significant not only for German creators, but for every songwriter, composer and publisher whose work has been swept into AI training data without consent regardless of where that creator, or the AI company, is based.

APRA AMCOS says Friday’s ruling matches the warning issued by Prime Minister Albanese in his "AI in Australia's Interests" address at the University of Sydney earlier this month. The Prime Minister told his audience that no company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist's control. Anything less, he said, is theft.

The organisation says the only way forward for Suno and for every AI developer operating in this territory is commercial negotiation grounded in consent, transparency and fair remuneration for the creators whose work fuels these commercial operations.

Dean Ormston, CEO of APRA AMCOS, explains: "Munich has called it what it is. Not innovation. Theft. The Australian Prime Minister said the same thing at the University of Sydney: no company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist's control. Anything less, is theft.

"We already know what has been taken. Midnight Oil. Cold Chisel. Sia. Crowded House. Lorde. Our members found their own songs inside these systems, uninvited and unpaid. This is not just a German case. It's a warning to every AI developer, in every territory, including this one. You cannot train on the world's music and argue the world's laws don't apply to you.

"Suno knows where we are. The path forward is negotiation, built on consent and fair payment. We expect that conversation to start now."

Dr Tobias Holzmüller, CEO of GEMA adds: "All generative AI is based on human creativity; artificial intelligence is nothing without humans. Today, the Chamber made one thing crystal clear: AI models built on stolen intellectual property have no protection under the law. AI service providers must pay for licences rather than helping themselves to our members’ works free of charge."