Major record labels sue AI company behind ‘BBL Drizzy’

A group of record labels, including the big three – Universal Music Group (UMG), Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Records – are suing two of the leading names in AI generative music production, alleging that the companies violated their copyrights “en masse.”

The two AI companies Suno and Udio use text prompts to produce original music. Both companies have had some success: Suno is available for use on Microsoft Copilot through a partnership with the tech giant. Udio was used to create “BBL Drizzy,” one of the most notable examples of AI music going viral.

The case against Suno was filed in federal court in Boston, and the Udio case was filed in New York. Record companies say artists across genres and eras have had their work used without consent.

The lawsuits were filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the powerful group that represents major players in the music industry, and a group of record labels. The RIAA requests compensation of up to US$150,000 per work, in addition to other fees.

“These are simple cases of copyright infringement involving unlicensed copying of sound recordings on a large scale. Suno and Udio are trying to hide the full scope of their infringement, rather than putting their services on a solid, legal footing,” RIAA Chief Legal Officer Ken Doroshow said in a press release.

The plaintiffs say that when they accused Suno of using copyrighted works, the company deflected, saying the training data was “confidential business information.” Udio made similar claims in correspondence, according to the lawsuit. “If Suno had taken pains to avoid copying Plaintiffs’ sound recordings and ingesting them into its AI model, Suno’s service would not have been able to reproduce convincing imitations of such a wide range of human musical expression with the quality that Suno touts,” the complaint says.

The lawsuits are a significant step in the contentious fight between the music industry and technology companies that offer AI tools. UMG and other music publishers have previously sued Anthropic for distributing copyrighted song lyrics when users activated the Claude 2 system.

Starting last year with a cryptic fake Drake song generated using AI, artists and record labels have waged a public battle against companies they say illegally copied their protected work to train and develop AI tools. Some AI systems are capable of playing recordings that sound convincingly like well-known artists – raising questions about how much control a musician has over their fake AI image.

Platforms like TikTok and YouTube have also been caught in the crosshairs as AI-generated music proliferates online. Earlier this year, songs by UMG artists including Taylor Swift were temporarily removed from TikTok because the two companies were unable to reach a licensing agreement, in part due to concerns surrounding AI. Last fall, YouTube announced a new system for removing AI-generated music content at the request of rights holders. In May, Sony Music sent letters to hundreds of technology companies warning them about “unauthorized” use of copyrighted works.

Suno executives and investors acknowledged the possibility of being sued on a Rolling Stone company profile this March. For some, it’s simply the cost of doing business: Antonio Rodriguez, an early Suno investor, told the magazine, “Honestly, if we had record deals when this company started, I probably wouldn’t have invested in it. I think they needed to make this product without restrictions.”

AI companies have been secretive about what data is used to train their models. OpenAI is currently being sued by authors and news publishers like The New York Times who claim that their work was included in the training data. OpenAI CTO Mira Murati repeatedly dodged questions about whether Sora, the company’s AI video generator, was trained on YouTube content.

While much AI-generated music is not a substitute for music by human artists, there is a real fear in the music and other creative industries that AI content could harm their ability to make money from their work. In April, a group called the Artist Rights Alliance wrote an open letter demanding that AI companies “cease the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to infringe and devalue the rights of human artists.”