Berlin, July 31st, 2026 (The Berlin Spectator) – Germany’s music rights organization GEMA has won a decisive victory in its copyright case against Suno, the US-based AI music generator, according to a Munich court ruling.
The 42nd Chamber of the Munich Regional Court barred the American company from using protected songs without authorization. Presiding judge Elke Schwager sided with GEMA on nearly every point, ruling in Suno’s favor only on minor secondary issues. The company was ordered to stop the infringing use, disclose information, and pay damages. The verdict is not yet final, and Suno says it is weighing its options, including an appeal.
The case centered on six well-known songs: “Atemlos,” “Daddy Cool,” “Mambo No. 5,” “Big in Japan,” “Forever Young,” and “Rasputin.” According to the court, Suno’s model had been trained on these tracks and, in tests GEMA conducted, reproduced them in recognizable form.
Did the AI Store the Songs?
The core legal question was whether the AI model stored the songs internally. If so, that would count as unauthorized reproduction under copyright law. AI companies typically argue their systems only learn patterns without retaining the original material, and Suno made the same case here.
The court disagreed, reasoning that copyright protection cannot simply vanish between the training phase and the moment a system reproduces a work in recognizable form. The ruling closely tracks a decision Schwager issued last November in a separate GEMA case against OpenAI, where she likewise found that ChatGPT had stored copyrighted lyrics rather than merely learned from them.
Not every court has reached the same conclusion. A UK court ruled last year against Getty Images in its case over AI image training, finding that the model had learned from the photos without storing them.
Jurisdiction and Fair Use
The ruling also addressed whether a German court had authority over the case at all, given that Suno’s training took place in the US. Schwager confirmed jurisdiction, citing rules that let rights organizations sue at the location of one infringement and bundle in related violations from elsewhere.
The court also rejected the idea that US fair use doctrine shielded Suno’s training process, noting the music data had been obtained despite download protections and used for commercial purposes.
On the question of who bears responsibility for what the AI generates, the court held that Suno is liable for the output since it controls every step leading up to it.
“Good Day”
GEMA welcomed the ruling. Chief executive Tobias Holzmüller called it a good day for creators and for European culture more broadly, saying the court had labeled Suno’s conduct plainly as theft of intellectual property. He added that GEMA hopes the case will push Suno and other AI companies toward licensing agreements, and that the ruling shows infringement originating in the US can still be challenged from abroad.
Suno rejected the court’s reasoning, saying in a statement that the ruling rests on a mistaken understanding of how its technology works and how US law applies, and that it is reviewing all options including an appeal.
Musician Peter Maffay, who is active in GEMA advocacy and attended the verdict, called it a hugely important day for artists, saying the ruling protects their rights and claims. He stressed he has nothing against AI itself, but argued creators must share in whatever is built from their work.
Germany’s state minister for culture, Wolfram Weimer, said the ruling made clear that protecting human creative work was indispensable, including against providers of generative AI. He called for a legal framework that supports both innovation and creativity while ensuring rights holders are fairly compensated and included in the value AI generates.
