Reading in Between the Measures: Understanding the Entertainment Industry’s AI Concerns through Lawsuit Complaints

Perspectives Into The Grievances Of The Industry: UMG v. Suno/Udio and Disney v. Midjourney

As in every other industry, the copyright owners of the entertainment industry are waging wars against largely unregulated Large Language Models (“LLMs”). AI companies are claiming that their interests—national security, economic prosperity, and democratic ideals—defeat copyright protection.[1] Yet, some argue that copyright is fundamental to those interests; James Madison argued as much at the nation's founding.[2] He proposed a copyright provision to the Constitution, arguing that copyright is fundamental to the nation’s progress in science and technology. Well, why the disconnect now?

Disagreements arise over one process: AI training. There is ample literature and lawsuits on the subject.[3] Recently, Suno, Udio/Uncharted Labs, and Midjourney are names frequently found in the news due to lawsuits by Hollywood giants.[4] Reading into these complaints reveals three main grievances: (1) open and notorious admission of infringement, (2) clear violation of fair use due to enormous economic gains, and (3) the feasibility of piracy.

1. AI Executives Are Not Subtle About Their Infringement

One year ago, UMG, Sony Music, and the Recording Industry Association of America filed a complaint against Suno—an AI company whose product primarily functions to generate original music. In the plaintiffs’ complaint, they first pointed to Suno’s admissions; multiple stakeholders at Suno openly admitted to knowledge of Suno’s illegal activities, boasting its lack of effect on their continued investment.[5] Suno’s early investors and venture capitalists emphasized that they would rather the company disregard copyright laws than entangled themselves with compliance.[6]

Similarly, in the Udio complaints, the plaintiffs emphasize the CEO co-founder’s evasiveness when speaking on the legality of the model's training data.[7] Plaintiffs go as far as to construe the CEO co-founder’s prevarication as deliberate omissions, which directly acknowledge the obviousness of the infringement.[8] Likewise, when NBCU and Disney sued AI image generator Midjourney, they cited Midjourney’s CEO’s statement as one of their grievances; during which, he communicated a disregard for copyright laws.[9] More than any technical violation, copyright owners are frustrated because of human arrogance that rejects the copyright law regime. 

2. Copyright Owners Are Afraid of the Fair-Use Slippery Slope

The second grievance concerns AI Companies’ reliance on the fair use defense. In both the Udio and Suno briefs, the plaintiffs correctly anticipate the defense and argue it be rejected.[10]  

It is not hard to see why the plaintiffs felt the need to address the fair use doctrine. Fair use allows people to use copyrighted material, without legal consequences because the use is "fair." Courts use several factors to determine whether a use is fair, for example: transformation, the relationship between the two works, and market effects.[11]

In the past, courts have especially favored generative AI models in defense of fair use. In Bartz v. PBC, a group of authors brought an action against a generative AI model created by Anthropic.[12] The court held that the use of legally obtained books to train the generative AI satisfied the fair use doctrine, because it was significantly transformative and would not impair the plaintiffs’ market.[13] In Kadrey v. Meta, the court ruled for Meta, holding that the act of training AI models using books is fair use, because the outputs of these models did not affect the plaintiffs’ market.[14]

Here, our cases differ. Songs sampling Udio’s music go viral,[15] and an AI band that relies on Suno can amass millions of streams on Spotify.[16] "In addressing the fair use defense, plaintiffs highlighted AI's mimicry; AI models trained on copyrighted music are trained to replicate inspired, musical expressions."[17] If courts continue to uphold fair use defense for AI systems, the music industry is at serious risk of losing audiences. Most people can only listen to one song at a time; if some of our valuable attention span gets sucked into an AI-product, there will be fewer consumers for human-created music.

If the court fails to recognize this delicate difference, in relying on Bartz and Meta to push fair use through, it is easy to envision an art industry dominated by machines.

3. The Rise of Piracy in the Name of Innovation

The third grievance goes beyond infringement and involves training AI systems on pirated content, effectively rewarding the use of piracy. In late September, the plaintiffs in the Suno lawsuit filed an amended complaint, alleging that Suno had pirated content to train its LLMs.[18] Similarly, Disney accused Midjourney of pirating its content for use in Midjourney’s AI models.[19] Both plaintiffs claimed that piracy is accomplished through a process known as stream-ripping.[20] Stream-ripping initially stirred the music industry, enabling internet users to privately download web content available for streaming, and it has continued to be an easily-accessible form of piracy.[21] Today, stream-ripping is being used to bypass the security systems of public display sites—like YouTube, and isolate pictures and sounds into localized drives for LLMs to train from.[22]

Again, plaintiffs have good reasons to fear. The Napster piracy boom in the 2000s cost the music industry more than $7 billion in revenue. [23] Even in the present, book piracy for the purpose of training text-based models is on the rise; illegal datasets like Books3 are used by some of the biggest names in the industry, like Meta and Google.[24] The demand for training materials has undoubtedly incentivized the use of dubious means to obtain them; and unlike books and news articles which are traditionally hidden behind paywalls, music is heavily publicized to drive streaming revenue.

Evaluating Licenses As A Solution To The Conundrum

Influential players in the industry have all hinted that there are two ways of addressing concerns: Litigation or Licensing. Suits against Suno, Udio, and Midjourney are in play and expected to create industry-altering precedent.  

Legislative-minded people express cynicism towards licensing as a long-term solution. 

For one, the damage has already been done. Making LLMs forget data upon request is technologically impossible, and retrofitting models is expensive. [25] Carey Lening, a privacy attorney and expert, conducted a deep dive into whether unlearning is technically possible; she concluded that, while feasible, it is unlikely that any AI company will implement it.[26] In essence, normal databases operate like making a salad, and LLM training operates like baking a cake. Once a salad is made, a tomato can be picked out with little to no effect on the other ingredients; but, once a cake is baked, removing the eggs is almost impossible. Companies are unlikely to remodel their LLMs to fit requests from IP holders; at least, not without a court order, especially if it will cost companies upwards of tens of millions to retrain a model.[27]

Optimists are hopeful about a future with partnerships between AI companies and copyright holders. RIAA—a plaintiff in both the Suno and Udio lawsuits—claims that “there is a clear path forward through partnerships that both further AI innovation and foster human artistry.”[28] Licensing has always put rights back into the hands of IP holders; it is a system trusted by respectful players. In 2024, Symphonic Distribution—a music distribution company that works with over 200 channels—announced that it will allow artists to opt their work in to AI training, while also collecting royalties.[29] Likewise, Merlin—one of the largest independent music distributors—signed with ElevenLabs to allow their artists the same options; ElevenLabs recently launched Eleven Music to directly compete against AI giants like Suno.[30] Referencing numbers from text-based AI collaborations, partnership deals can cost millions of dollars per year. [31]

Where Do We Go From Here?

As of the finalization of this article, Disney has announced their licensing partnership with OpenAI,[32] practically closing the chapter on the Midjourney lawsuit. Taken together with the U.S. Copyright Office’s Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Report expressing legislative leniency towards AI,[33] a license-oriented industry seems possible. This partnership between two industry giants cleared many of the concerns expressed in the lawsuits: It acknowledged the symbiotic relationship between copyright holders and AI models; it removed the necessity for the fair use defense; and, it disincentivized piracy as a method to obtain training data. However, the jury is still out, especially in the Udio and Suno suits, on whether licensing will be the future.

[1] Virginie Berger, The AI Copyright Battle: Why OpenAI and Google Are Pushing for Fair Use, Forbes (Mar. 15, 2025 at 12:27 ET), https://www.forbes.com/sites/virginieberger/2025/03/15/the-ai-copyright-battle-why-openai-and-google-are-pushing-for-fair-use/.

[2] Copyright.gov, U.S. Copyright Beginnings, https://www.copyright.gov/history/copyright-exhibit/beginnings/

[3] See generally Matthew Schurz, Trained or Trouble: is AI learning or infringing?, UC Law Comm/Ent (Mar. 20, 2025), https://uclawsfcomment.org/online-content/30ps1on5ro82uer5soypq4lghqg4x1.

[4] See generally Chloe Veltman, In First-of-its-kind Lawsuit, Hollywood Giants Sue AI Firm for Copyright infringement, NPR (June 12, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/06/12/nx-s1-5431684/ai-disney-universal-midjourney-copyright-infringement-lawsuit. See also Associated Press, Music Labels Sue AI Song Generators Suno and Udio for Copyright Infringement, The Guardian (June 24, 2024), https://www.theguardian.com/music/article/2024/jun/25/record-labels-sue-ai-song-generator-apps-copyright-infringement-lawsuit.

[5] Complaint at 14, UMG Recordings v. Suno Inc., No. 24-cv-11611-FDS (D. Mass. June 24, 2024).

[6] Id. at 15.

[7] Complaint at 3, UMG Recordings v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., No. 24-cv-04777 (D. Mass. June 24, 2024).

[8] Id. at 4.

[9] Complaint at 55, Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Midjourney Inc., No. 2:25-cv-05275, (C. D. Cal. June 11, 2025)

[10] Complaint at 25, UMG Recordings v. Suno Inc., No. 24-cv-11611-FDS (D. Mass. June 24, 2024); Complaint at 30, UMG Recordings v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., No. 24-cv-04777 (D. Mass. June 24, 2024).

[11] 17 U.S.C. § 107

[12] Bartz v. PBC, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1014 (N.D. Cal. 2025).

[13] Id. at 1019

[14] Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1050 (N.D. Cal. 2025)

[15] Kristin Robinson, Metro Boomin’s ‘BBL Drizzy’ is More Than a Joke – It Could Signal the Future of Sampling, Billboard (May 15, 2024), https://www.billboard.com/business/tech/metro-boomin-bbl-drizzy-future-ai-sampling-1235682587/.

[16] Lanre Bakare, An AI-generated Band Got 1m Plays on Spotify. Now Music Insiders Say Listeners Should Be Warned, The Guardian (July 14, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/14/an-ai-generated-band-got-1m-plays-on-spotify-now-music-insiders-say-listeners-should-be-warned.

[17] Complaint at 27, UMG Recordings v. Suno Inc., No. 24-cv-11611-FDS (D. Mass. June 24, 2024); Complaint at 30, UMG Recordings v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., No. 24-cv-04777 (D. Mass. June 24, 2024).

[18] Proposed Amended Complaint at 16, UMG Recordings v. Suno Inc., No. 24-cv-11611-FDS (D. Mass. June 24, 2024).

[19] Complaint at 55, Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Midjourney Inc., No. 2:25-cv-05275, (C. D. Cal. June 11, 2025).

[20] Proposed Amended Complaint at 17, UMG Recordings v. Suno Inc., No. 24-cv-11611-FDS (D. Mass. June 24, 2024); Proposed Amended Complaint at 16, UMG Recordings v. Suno Inc., No. 24-cv-11611-FDS (D. Mass. June 24, 2024).

[21] Id.

[22] Mandy Dalugdug, Suno Faces Another Allegation of ‘Stream-Ripping’ From Youtube… This Time in Class Action Led by Indie Artists, Music Business Worldwide (Sept. 24, 2025), https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/suno-faces-another-allegation-of-stream-ripping-from-youtube-this-time-in-class-action-led-by-indie-artist/.  

[23] Gebre Waddel, From Napster to the Cloud: The Evolution of Music File Sharing in the Music Industry, Sound Credit (June 9, 2025), https://www.soundcredit.com/blog/the-music-industrys-file-sharing-journey-from-piracy-to-collaboration.

[24] Alex Reisner, Revealed: The Authors Whose Pirated Books Are Powering Generative AI, The Atlantic (Aug. 19, 2025), https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/08/books3-ai-meta-llama-pirated-books/675063/.

[25] Higa et al., The Right to Be Forgotten Is Dead: Data Lives Forever in AI, Tech Policy (May 20, 2025), https://www.techpolicy.press/the-right-to-be-forgotten-is-dead-data-lives-forever-in-ai/.

[26] Privacat, Can LLMs Unlearn? Part 4: The Technical Complexity of it All (continued), Privacat Insights (Nov. 14, 2024), https://insights.priva.cat/p/can-llms-unlearn-part-3-the-technical-d88.

[27] Katharina Buchholz, The Extreme Cost of Training AI Models, Forbes (Aug. 23, 2024), https://www.forbes.com/sites/katharinabuchholz/2024/08/23/the-extreme-cost-of-training-ai-models/.

[28] Mitch Glazier, RIAA Statement on Midjourney AI Litigation, RIAA (June 11, 2025), https://www.riaa.com/riaa-statement-on-midjourney-ai-litigation/. 

[29] Symphonic Distribution Joins Musical AI's Rights Management Platform for AI Training, Record of the Day (Aug. 20, 2024), https://www.recordoftheday.com/news-and-press/symphonic-distribution-joins-musical-ais-rights-management-platform-for-ai-training.

[30] Stuart Dredge, ElevenLabs Debuts AI Music Service with Kobalt and Merlin Deals, Musically (Aug. 6, 2025), https://musically.com/2025/08/06/elevenlabs-debuts-ai-music-service-with-kobalt-and-merlin-deals/.

[31] See generally Paul Sweeting, Generative AI & Licensing: A Special Report, Variety (Oct. 1, 2024), https://variety.com/vip-special-reports/generative-ai-content-licensing-special-report-1236157051/.

[32] OpenAI, The Walt Disney Company and OpenAI reach landmark agreement to bring beloved characters from across Disney’s brands to Sora, OpenAI (Dec. 11, 2025), https://openai.com/index/disney-sora-agreement/.

[33] U. S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 3: Generative AI Training 95 (2025).