Udio launches AI music editing tool while ongoing lawsuits continue
Sessions is Udio’s new visual editing workstation for AI-generated music.
AI music platform Udio is pushing forward with a major new feature despite being caught in ongoing copyright lawsuits. The company’s latest launch brings a visual editing tool to its growing suite of AI music creation products.
The tool is called Sessions, and is a new editing feature designed to make AI-generated music creation easier and more intuitive. The tool provides a visual workspace where you can move, extend, or replace different parts of a song, such as verses, choruses or bridges. It does this by automatically identifying those sections from the waveform, allowing for a smoother and more “natural” editing process.
According to Andrew Sanchez, Udio’s CEO and Co-Founder, the new tool is designed to fit naturally into existing creative workflows: “We know artists and producers use Udio alongside other tools, often jumping between platforms to shape their sound. We’ve built Sessions to seamlessly integrate into those workflows, making it easier to visualize, edit, and experiment with tracks in one unified place.”
Udio’s Head of Product, Ian Braunstein, added: “Sessions is exactly the solution I’ve been looking for to help bring ideas to life with more precision and flexibility.”
The feature is available now to users subscribed to Udio’s Standard or Pro plans, and comes shortly after the launch of Styles – a tool that lets users mimic the sound of other tracks – and the Allegro v1.5 model update, which promises faster results without compromising on quality.
Behind the scenes, though, Udio’s legal situation remains unresolved. Alongside rival AI platform Suno, Udio is being sued by Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and Warner Records. The record labels claim both companies used copyrighted music without permission to train their AI systems.
In response, both Udio and Suno have argued that their practices fall under the “fair use” exemption in US copyright law. The debate is ongoing – and part of a much bigger conversation around AI training data. A recent court ruling in a separate case involving AI and copyright suggested that some training could fall under fair use, depending on the source of the data. The judge ruled in that case that using pirated material was copyright infringement, but using public material was fair use.
This is a significant ruling as far as AI tech companies and copyright is concerned. With other AI companies, like Udio and Suno, still in the middle of similar legal cases, it will be interesting to see whether judges on those cases land on a similar decision.