Munich court rules AI music generator Suno infringed copyright, orders halt to use of protected songs
A Munich court found that Suno trained its AI on protected songs without permission and reproduced them, siding with German rights group GEMA in Europe's first binding ruling on AI-generated music.
The ruling
On 31 July 2026, the Munich Regional Court ruled that US-based AI music generator Suno infringed copyright by training its model on protected songs without a licence and reproducing them. The court sided with GEMA, Germany's music rights organisation, in what is the first binding European decision on AI-generated music. Presiding judge Elke Schwager ordered Suno to cease using six specific compositions and to provide information on revenues earned from the infringement so that damages can be calculated. The judgment is not yet final, but under German law it can be enforced even while an appeal is pending.
The songs and the evidence
The case centred on six well-known tracks: "Atemlos", "Daddy Cool", "Mambo No. 5", "Big in Japan", "Forever Young" and "Rasputin". GEMA, which represents the composers and publishers of these works, demonstrated in court that Suno's AI could generate outputs closely resembling the originals when given only the title, lyrics and style. Side-by-side comparisons showed that melodies, harmonies and rhythms were recognisably reproduced. GEMA argued this proved the model had memorised the songs during training, rather than merely learning abstract patterns.
It cannot be that the songs are used for training and then recognisably reproduced at the end, and in between the copyright disappears.
Suno's defense and the court's rejection
Suno, a Massachusetts start-up valued at around $5.4bn, denied storing copies of songs. It said its model contains only mathematical parameters derived from large datasets, and that any outputs are triggered by user prompts. The company also challenged the German court's jurisdiction, arguing that training took place in the United States and was protected by the US fair use doctrine. The court rejected all these arguments. It found jurisdiction under a special provision for rights management organisations, allowing suit where an infringement occurs. On fair use, the judge noted that the music data was scraped despite download protections and used for commercial purposes, so the doctrine did not apply. The court also held Suno, not its users, responsible for the infringing outputs.
- GEMA wins first-instance case against OpenAI over song lyrics
- Oral hearing in GEMA v. Suno
- Court rules Suno infringed copyright on six songs
- Damages calculation and possible appeal
Reactions from artists and officials
German rock musician Peter Maffay, 76, welcomed the ruling outside the court. He said AI-generated music cannot match human creation.
AI cannot sweat, cannot cry. That is a human quality.
Maffay added that if AI is trained on human work, the creators must be paid. Songwriter Karo Schrader echoed that view, saying musicians put their emotions into songs, and that human feeling will always prevail. Culture State Minister Wolfram Weimer said the ruling sent a signal to strengthen creators' rights in the digital music market, stressing that innovation and intellectual property protection must be linked.
What happens next
The court has not yet set the amount of damages Suno must pay; the company must first disclose its infringement-related revenues. Suno can appeal to the Higher Regional Court of Munich. GEMA has said it wants to bring Suno to a paid licensing agreement, which the company has so far refused. The ruling follows a similar first-instance win for GEMA against OpenAI in November 2025 over song lyrics, a case now under appeal. The Suno decision is expected to influence other pending cases, including one against rival AI music generator Udio.
