Blab AI
Sony Music Files Second Lawsuit Against AI Music Generator Udio Over 30,000 Infringed Recordings
On Monday, Sony Music Entertainment filed a new lawsuit against Udio, the AI music‑generation startup, claiming the platform used more than 30,000 copyrighted recordings without permission. The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, accuses Udio of copying songs from YouTube to train its generative models, producing audio that can be indistinguishable from the originals.
Sony says Udio’s text‑to‑music engine lets users type prompts that describe the kind of song they want to create. According to the company, the system can generate music that is “similar to copyrighted recordings,” and it has “flouted the rights of copyright owners” since its launch. Sony lists works by artists such as Alicia Keys, Dolly Parton and Elvis Presley among the 30,117 recordings it says were used without authorization.
The lawsuit seeks up to $150,000 per infringed work, or the actual amount of damages, or the profits Udio earned from the alleged infringement, plus additional damages and costs. Sony also argues that the synthetic outputs saturate the market and compete with genuine recordings.
Udio, founded in December 2023 by former Google DeepMind researchers and backed by Andreessen Horowitz, will.i.am and Common, released a free beta of its model on April 10 2024. The platform can generate vocals and instrumentation from text prompts and offers subscription plans that unlock advanced features such as audio inpainting.
In 2024, Sony, Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group filed an initial lawsuit against Udio. Since that filing, Warner and Universal entered licensing agreements with the startup, allowing artists to opt in to the use of their catalog for AI training. Universal later reached a settlement that ended its legal dispute with Udio.
Udio has not yet responded to the new complaint. In its 2024 response to the earlier lawsuit, the company said it stands by its technology and is “uninterested in reproducing content in our training set.” It explained that generative models learn from examples, comparing the process to a human listening to music and studying scores.
The case follows a broader wave of copyright litigation involving AI music generators. Sony and Universal have sued other AI companies, while some studios, such as Lionsgate, have partnered with AI startups like Runway. Sony also maintains ongoing lawsuits against the AI platform Suno.
Industry analysts note that the dispute highlights the tension between rapid AI development and existing copyright frameworks. While AI models can produce high‑quality music, the training data often includes copyrighted works that were not cleared for use. The legal actions underscore the need for clearer licensing mechanisms and industry‑wide standards.
As of now, the lawsuit is pending and no settlement has been announced. Sony’s filing is the second major legal action against Udio, and it may influence how other record labels approach AI‑generated music. The outcome could set a precedent for how copyrighted audio is treated in the training of generative models.
The case also raises questions about the economic impact of AI‑generated music on artists and record labels. Sony’s claim that synthetic outputs “drown out the genuine sound recordings” reflects concerns that AI could undermine traditional revenue streams.
Until a court decision or settlement, the dispute remains a key development in the evolving intersection of artificial intelligence and music copyright law.
Sony says Udio’s text‑to‑music engine lets users type prompts that describe the kind of song they want to create. According to the company, the system can generate music that is “similar to copyrighted recordings,” and it has “flouted the rights of copyright owners” since its launch. Sony lists works by artists such as Alicia Keys, Dolly Parton and Elvis Presley among the 30,117 recordings it says were used without authorization.
The lawsuit seeks up to $150,000 per infringed work, or the actual amount of damages, or the profits Udio earned from the alleged infringement, plus additional damages and costs. Sony also argues that the synthetic outputs saturate the market and compete with genuine recordings.
Udio, founded in December 2023 by former Google DeepMind researchers and backed by Andreessen Horowitz, will.i.am and Common, released a free beta of its model on April 10 2024. The platform can generate vocals and instrumentation from text prompts and offers subscription plans that unlock advanced features such as audio inpainting.
In 2024, Sony, Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group filed an initial lawsuit against Udio. Since that filing, Warner and Universal entered licensing agreements with the startup, allowing artists to opt in to the use of their catalog for AI training. Universal later reached a settlement that ended its legal dispute with Udio.
Udio has not yet responded to the new complaint. In its 2024 response to the earlier lawsuit, the company said it stands by its technology and is “uninterested in reproducing content in our training set.” It explained that generative models learn from examples, comparing the process to a human listening to music and studying scores.
The case follows a broader wave of copyright litigation involving AI music generators. Sony and Universal have sued other AI companies, while some studios, such as Lionsgate, have partnered with AI startups like Runway. Sony also maintains ongoing lawsuits against the AI platform Suno.
Industry analysts note that the dispute highlights the tension between rapid AI development and existing copyright frameworks. While AI models can produce high‑quality music, the training data often includes copyrighted works that were not cleared for use. The legal actions underscore the need for clearer licensing mechanisms and industry‑wide standards.
As of now, the lawsuit is pending and no settlement has been announced. Sony’s filing is the second major legal action against Udio, and it may influence how other record labels approach AI‑generated music. The outcome could set a precedent for how copyrighted audio is treated in the training of generative models.
The case also raises questions about the economic impact of AI‑generated music on artists and record labels. Sony’s claim that synthetic outputs “drown out the genuine sound recordings” reflects concerns that AI could undermine traditional revenue streams.
Until a court decision or settlement, the dispute remains a key development in the evolving intersection of artificial intelligence and music copyright law.
