Suno Licensing Deals Raise New Issue in AI Copyright Fight With Universal, Sony

Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment are pointing to Suno’s licensing deals with Warner Music Group and BMG as they pursue claims that the AI music company used copyrighted recordings without permission to train its models.

Suno maintains that its use of copyrighted music for artificial intelligence training is protected by fair use and did not require licenses. Universal and Sony argue that the company’s later agreements with major rights holders support their claim that a commercial market exists for licensing music used to train AI systems.

Warner was originally part of the lawsuit filed against Suno in 2024 but settled its claims in November 2025 and entered a licensing partnership with the company. Suno agreed to develop new AI models using licensed music under the deal.

BMG followed in August with a global agreement covering its recorded music and publishing catalogs.

The agreements could become relevant to one part of the fair use test that examines how an unauthorized use affects the market for copyrighted material.

Fair use permits copyrighted works to be used without permission in some circumstances. Courts consider four factors, including the purpose of the use, the amount taken and its effect on the market for the original work.

Universal and Sony contend that Suno’s agreements support the existence of a viable market for licensing recordings for AI training. If the court accepts that argument, the labels could claim Suno’s earlier training practices deprived rights holders of licensing revenue.

Suno says the later deals do not establish that such a market existed when the disputed training occurred. Its attorneys have argued that lost licensing fees cannot be used to defeat fair use when the underlying use is legally protected.

The issue has already surfaced during discovery in the Massachusetts federal case.

Universal and Sony sought access to Suno’s confidential Warner settlement, arguing that the agreement could support their position that licensing generative AI training was commercially viable.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Levenson denied the request after finding the settlement had limited relevance and citing concerns about compelling disclosure of confidential settlement terms. U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor later upheld the ruling.

The decision kept the confidential agreement out of that discovery dispute while leaving the broader fair use question unresolved.

Suno has said the Warner settlement reflects the compromises involved in resolving litigation rather than the market conditions that existed when its AI models were trained.

Similar questions are being tested in other AI copyright cases. A federal judge hearing a lawsuit against Meta rejected an argument that lost licensing fees for AI training established market harm, while another judge found that Anthropic’s use of lawfully acquired books to train its Claude models qualified as fair use.

Neither ruling controls Suno’s case, and courts are still developing the legal boundaries surrounding the use of copyrighted material to train generative AI systems.

Universal, Sony and Warner sued Suno in June 2024, accusing the company of copying copyrighted recordings on a large scale to develop technology capable of generating competing music. Suno has relied on fair use as a central defense.

The industry landscape has shifted considerably since the lawsuit was filed. Warner has moved from plaintiff to Suno licensing partner, while BMG has reached its own agreement with the company. Universal separately settled copyright litigation with AI music company Udio and entered a licensing arrangement aimed at developing a platform using authorized music. Sony continues to litigate against Suno and Udio.

The agreements come as record companies push AI music services toward licensed training models while litigation over earlier training practices continues.

Suno’s case remains in discovery, with major motions addressing fair use due in April 2027. The court has yet to decide whether the company’s use of copyrighted recordings to train its AI models qualifies as fair use or what weight its later licensing agreements may carry in that analysis.