Independent music publisher Round Hill Music has filed separate copyright infringement lawsuits against AI companies Suno and Anthropic, accusing both companies of using copyrighted music without permission to train their artificial intelligence systems. The publisher is seeking damages that could potentially reach or exceed $1 billion, escalating an increasingly heated legal battle between the music industry and AI companies over the use of copyrighted material in training datasets.
The lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, allege that both companies used lyrics from at least 500 songs controlled by Round Hill to train their respective AI systems. The catalogue includes works associated with major artists and songwriters, including James Brown, The Kinks and the Goo Goo Dolls. Round Hill says it could ultimately expand the claims to cover 10,000 or more compositions, potentially pushing the value of the case beyond the billion-dollar mark.
Round Hill Music accuses Anthropic’s Claude and Suno’s music generator of using copyrighted lyrics and compositions without permission. Central to the lawsuits is the question of whether AI training requires creator consent and compensation. CEO Josh Gruss insists on fair payment for artists, rejecting settlements that don’t address this, reflecting the music industry’s broader fight against unauthorised use of copyrighted works in AI models.
Suno and Anthropic face growing legal pressure from major entities like Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and BMG over unauthorised training. This friction is driving a shift toward formal licensing; for instance, Suno’s recent deal with BMG establishes a model for compensating rights holders while allowing AI development to continue.
Amid increasing scrutiny, Suno has implemented download restrictions and faced reports of a hack revealing its use of varied online music sources for model training. Round Hill’s complaint, however, focuses not on rejecting AI, but on establishing necessary standards for permission, ownership, and compensation, highlighting the industry’s struggle to define the boundary between innovation and infringement.
