New releases, music videos and album news — indie, rap, rock and pop. Always covering Ren, Chris Webby, Sam Tompkins, bbno$, CHINCHILLA, Muse, Yungblud and more.
Elvis Presley Enterprises is putting Tennessee’s ELVIS Act to the test in its voice-imitation lawsuit against Suno
Elvis Presley Enterprises and a group of song owners have sued AI music generator Suno in California, alleging unauthorised use of artists’ voices and music. The case will test whether Tennessee’s ELVIS Act can hold an AI company responsible for making tools that generate identifiable voices, rather than only targeting people who use those tools.
The complaint brings five claims, including two under Tennessee law: the ELVIS Act and the state’s common-law right of publicity. The Act, effective from 1 July 2024, protects voices that are readily identifiable and covers technology whose primary purpose or function is producing a particular person’s voice or likeness. Presley’s estate alleges that Suno’s tools meet that test; Suno disputes similar claims in a separate case, arguing its purpose is to create new music and that users, not the company, invoke artists’ names. The article reports pleaded damages of just over $202 million before any possible tripling or punitive damages.
In short
- Elvis Presley Enterprises is testing the ELVIS Act against Suno.
- The case asks whether the law reaches AI tools themselves.
- The complaint seeks just over $202 million before possible additional damages.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The estate’s strongest case is that a voice can be a distinctive part of an artist’s identity and livelihood, and that legal protection would be ineffective if companies could knowingly supply tools that reproduce identifiable voices while leaving responsibility only to users. If Suno’s system is designed or functions to generate such voices, applying the ELVIS Act could give practical effect to the protection Tennessee enacted.
The case against
Suno’s strongest case is that its product is a general-purpose music-making tool, not technology whose primary purpose is to produce any particular person’s voice, and that users choose what prompts to enter. Holding a platform liable for outputs prompted by users could extend the Act beyond its intended scope and chill legitimate creative uses; the estate’s allegations and claimed damages remain for the court to assess.