Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Advocates for the musicians argue that an artist's voice, name and stylistic identity are core to their livelihood and reputation, and that deliberately enabling fans to generate soundalike tracks by naming an artist exploits decades of built-up goodwill without consent or compensation. They contend that if Suno's own safeguards are as easily circumvented as the complaint describes, and if affiliate marketers were showing users how to do it, the company cannot credibly claim its stated protections were meaningful, making this less a novel copyright dispute than a straightforward case of unauthorised use of someone's identity for commercial gain.

The case against

Defenders of Suno and similar AI music tools argue that generating a track "in the style of" an artist, without reproducing their actual recordings or lyrics, is a longstanding creative practice akin to homage, parody or genre emulation, and that stylistic influence itself should not be monopolised by any one performer. They would emphasise that Suno states it does not use artist names as training metadata and has built filters specifically to deter direct impersonation, that isolated workarounds found by determined users do not necessarily reflect the company's intent or design, and that innovation in generative tools benefits musicians and listeners broadly, so liability should hinge on demonstrable harm and intent rather than the mere possibility of misuse by a subset of users.