Jason Isbell and other artists sue Suno over AI use of their identities
Jason Isbell, David Lowery and other musicians are suing Suno, alleging the AI music platform used artists’ identities and voices without consent.
AI music company Suno is facing another legal challenge, but this time the argument goes beyond whether copyrighted recordings or compositions were used to train its models.
Jason Isbell, David Lowery, Guy Forsyth and Eduardo Calle have filed a lawsuit against Suno in Massachusetts, accusing the company of using musicians’ identities without permission to generate music and other content that resembles their work.
According to Rolling Stone, the complaint claims Suno “encoded” the identities of countless artists into its AI model “without consent” and then commercially exploited those identities.
Why is this Suno lawsuit different?
Suno is already facing legal action from major music companies over alleged copyright infringement connected to AI training. Universal Music Group and Sony Music are currently pursuing separate claims against Suno over the alleged use of copyrighted recordings to train its models, while a recent German court ruling found Suno infringed copyright in a case brought by collecting society GEMA. This new case takes a different approach, focusing on right-of-publicity laws, which can protect a person’s identity from unauthorised commercial use.
That distinction could be significant for musicians.
An artist might own or transfer copyright in particular recordings, but that does not necessarily mean they have given up rights connected to their own identity, name or voice. The lawsuit argues that those rights belong to the performer unless they have been separately licensed.
The musicians allege that Suno has effectively turned artists’ identifying characteristics into data that can be used to generate music resembling them.
Artists claim Suno’s safeguards can be bypassed
Suno says it blocks prompts for specific artists and copyrighted songs. The company outlined these protections in its responsible AI music principles earlier this year, saying that prompts referencing specific artists would have the artist’s name removed and be redirected towards descriptive musical characteristics.
The lawsuit argues that these protections are not difficult to get around.
Rolling Stone reports that the complaint includes examples where artists’ real names or spaced-out versions of names were used as prompts. One alleged example involved entering “m i c h a e l j a c k s o n”, which reportedly produced songs referencing the artist’s signature moonwalk and white glove.
The suit also alleges that Suno’s systems can capture and store “voiceprints”, including characteristics such as pitch, timbre and breath dynamics.
Suno denies the allegations
Suno has, of course, rejected the claims set out in the lawsuit.
A spokesperson told Pitchfork, “We believe these claims are without merit and we intend to defend against them.”
The company says it has protections in place to prevent users from generating music based on specific artists and copyrighted songs, while also using third-party technology to screen uploaded audio and lyrics for potentially unauthorised material.
The case will now have to make its way through the US legal system, so there is no immediate ruling on whether the allegations are legally valid.
What could this case mean for artists?
If artists’ identities, voices and recognisable characteristics are ultimately found to require permission or licensing for commercial AI use, it could add another layer to the agreements being negotiated between the music industry and AI companies.
For independent artists, the bigger takeaway could be that your rights extend beyond individual recordings. As AI tools become increasingly capable of replicating recognisable musical characteristics, understanding what you own, what you license and how your work can be used is becoming increasingly important.
If you use AI as part of your own creative process, make sure you understand the terms of the tools you use and have the appropriate rights to anything you release. RouteNote accepts AI-generated and AI-assisted music subject to its content and rights requirements, so it’s worth checking the guidance on passing moderation before distributing a release.
Meanwhile, the Isbell case is one to watch. The outcome could help define where the line sits between being inspired by an artist’s sound and commercially exploiting the identity that makes that artist recognisable.