Licenses Versus Lawsuits: Why Suno’s Parallel Legal Strategies May Pose a ‘Conundrum’
Suno, the AI music-generation company, is pursuing two seemingly contradictory legal strategies at once: fighting Universal Music Group (UMG) and Sony Music in court over claims it illegally trained its model on unlicensed music, while simultaneously striking licensing deals with other major players, notably Warner Music Group (WMG) and BMG. Legal experts say this creates a potential "conundrum" for Suno, since the licences could undermine its own fair-use defence by showing that a paid market for AI training data already exists, a factor courts weigh heavily when assessing copyright claims.
Two years into litigation, WMG left the majors' lawsuit in November after settling with Suno on terms requiring it to build a new model using licensed music, and BMG signed a similar deal this month. UMG and Sony's lawyers have argued in court filings that the WMG agreement is "direct evidence" that a licensing market exists and that Suno's models rely on copyrighted recordings, while Suno counters that lost licensing opportunities do not constitute legal harm, citing a precedent from a similar Meta AI case. The outcome remains unsettled: a US judge has yet to rule on whether fair use applies to Suno's practices, though a German court recently found against it, and Suno, last valued at $5.4 billion, continues to expand its licensing deals even as it defends its no-licence stance in court.
- Suno fights UMG and Sony in court while licensing music from WMG and BMG.
- Experts say the licences could weaken Suno's fair-use defence.
- US court ruling on fair use for AI music training still pending.
New here? Start with this
Suno makes music using artificial intelligence trained on examples of existing recordings. Universal Music Group and Sony Music say the company used their copyrighted music without permission; Suno argues its training was lawful under the US fair-use doctrine, which can allow some uses of copyrighted work.
Warner Music Group and BMG have instead made licensing agreements with Suno, under which it is to develop a model using authorised music. The remaining court dispute raises questions about how copyright law applies to AI training and whether agreements to pay for music affect the case. The US court has not yet decided whether Suno’s earlier practices qualify as fair use.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Suno can argue that agreeing to licence music for future models is a practical business choice, not an admission that its earlier training was unlawful. A licensing market for some uses does not by itself settle whether the earlier uses qualify as fair use, and lost licensing opportunities may not amount to legally actionable harm under the precedent Suno cites. The court should assess the specific training practices and evidence rather than treat later commercial deals as conclusive.
The case against
UMG and Sony can argue that Suno’s deals show that licences for AI training are commercially available and that Suno recognises the value of using authorised recordings. If a workable licensing market exists, unlicensed training may substitute for paid access and weaken the fair-use case, particularly if the models depend on copyrighted recordings. Requiring companies to secure permission could also protect artists’ and rightsholders’ ability to control and be paid for the use of their work.