From the journal

Munich Regional Court Rules AI Music Training Infringes Copyright Across Borders, 31 July 2026

On 31 July 2026, the Landgericht München I ruled in GEMA v. Suno Inc. (Case No. 42 O 763/25) that Suno's AI music generation model infringed copyright in six GEMA-administered musical works. The court prohibited training-data reproduction in the US, model memorisation in Germany, public offering of the trained model, and reproduction through AI-generated outputs. It applied US copyright law to the US training acts and rejected Suno's fair use defence.

3 min read

On 31 July 2026, the Landgericht München I delivered judgment in GEMA v. Suno Inc., Case No. 42 O 763/25, the first European court ruling on copyright liability for a generative AI music tool. The case was brought by GEMA, the German music collecting society, against Suno Inc., the US-based provider of an AI music generation platform. The judgment is at the enforcement stage; Suno may appeal to the Oberlandesgericht München.

The court prohibited four acts with respect to six GEMA-administered compositions: reproduction for training purposes in the United States, retention of those works within the AI model in Germany, communication to the public by making the trained model available online, and reproduction and communication to the public through AI-generated output tracks. The court applied the Urheberrechtsgesetz (§§ 16, 19a UrhG) to acts occurring in Germany. It assumed jurisdiction over the US training acts through a venue rule available to collecting societies under German civil procedure law, then applied US copyright law and rejected Suno's fair use defence under 17 U.S.C. § 107, finding the training use commercial and substitutive. The court also ordered Suno to disclose the scale of its use of GEMA-administered works and found it liable in damages.

The ruling creates liability exposure for AI music generation companies that train models on recordings administered by territorial collecting societies in EU Member States without securing prior licences. GEMA covers Germany; other collecting societies with comparable membership coverage include PRS for Music in the UK, SACEM in France, SIAE in Italy, and SGAE in Spain, each of which is positioned to bring parallel proceedings in its territory. Music platforms, app developers integrating AI music generation tools, and enterprise customers deploying unlicensed AI music services carry secondary exposure under the laws of each territory where they make those services available.

The court's assumption of jurisdiction over US training acts rests on a collecting-society-specific procedural rule; private rightholders cannot use the same route. GEMA v. OpenAI, a related proceeding addressing AI training on GEMA works, is pending before the Oberlandesgericht München. The Court of Justice of the European Union is expected to rule in September 2026 in the Like Company case, which may alter the copyright analysis applicable to text-and-data-mining exceptions under Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790.

Licentium advises AI developers and digital content distributors on copyright exposure across European jurisdictions. Work we undertake includes copyright clearance strategy for AI training datasets, collecting society licence negotiations, cross-border copyright risk assessments, and support in AI copyright disputes before EU courts.

Source: Bird & Bird, Case Note: Landgericht München I, Case No. 42 O 763/25 (GEMA v. Suno Inc.), 31 July 2026

More from the journal

See all
Illia Prokopiev

MLR Registration and the FCA Cryptoasset Gateway to 25 October 2027

This matter concerns the transition of a United Kingdom cryptoasset business from FCA registration under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 to Part 4A permission under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The question is whether MLR registration gives conversion, grandfathering, priority, or a right to continue after 25 October 2027, and what an affected firm should do before the gateway closes. This analysis assumes an existing UK-facing cryptoasset business, no relevant Part 4A permission, and an intention to continue after commencement.

Illia Prokopiev

ESMA's 2026 Custody Resilience CSA and the Rules That Actually Bind

ESMA’s 2026 Common Supervisory Action is a coordinated national review of digital operational resilience in crypto-asset custody. It will test whether selected crypto-asset service providers can demonstrate effective controls across six announced workstreams. The legal questions are which requirements are binding, how national competent authorities may assess control effectiveness, and what consequences may follow from a deficiency. This analysis assumes that the firm is permitted under MiCA Article 59 to provide custody and administration within Article 3(1)(17).

Illia Prokopiev

Stablecoin regulation in the US, Hong Kong and Singapore

Stablecoin and digital-token regulation now combines market-entry authorization with continuous financial-crime controls in daily operations. The question is whether the United States’ proposed payment-stablecoin customer identification program, Hong Kong’s narrow first licensing round, and Singapore’s digital payment token (DPT) directory support a bank-like compliance characterization. They do, with material limits. The more accurate proposition is that compliance is moving beyond approval into continuous financial-institution-grade operations.