AI lawsuits continue at a staggering pace, and it seems as though new filings occur with each passing week. This highlights the legal ambiguity of artificial intelligence and the fact that many important questions still remain unanswered. Recent lawsuits also show that AI has the power to affect virtually every major industry – from news and music to software programming. If your company is approaching an AI lawsuit, it may help to review these recent lawsuits for important insights. Of course, you can also discuss your unique legal issues alongside an experienced artificial intelligence lawyer in the United States.

Record Labels Sue for AI-Generated Music

While AI lawsuits are now commonplace around the world, few of these lawsuits have involved AI-generated music. This is now a major fixture in the music world, and generative AI has shown an incredible ability to create music with no active human input. In June of 2024, record labels finally decided to take action.

Sony, UMG, and Warner have joined forces to sue two AI music generators. One of the defendants is Suno, while the other is Uncharted Labs – the company behind Udio. Both of these apps let users generate songs. The process is quite straightforward, and users can type in a few descriptive words to create their own songs.

The issue, according to the three plaintiffs, is that the apps use copyrighted songs to “train” their generative AI software. While this is one of the first times the music industry has faced an AI lawsuit of this nature, the same basic logic applies to many other lawsuits across other industries.

The question is whether it is fair to use a copyrighted artistic work to generate profits. Some claim that training an AI with copyrighted material is the same as “copying” that material. Others argue that the artist who created the work must provide their consent before it can be used for AI training purposes.

In response, Suno’s CEO claimed that their product does not “memorize and regurgitate” existing songs. Instead, he argues, the software “generates completely new outputs.” While this might be true, Suno will inevitably revert to the “fair use” defense that so many other AI companies have relied upon within the past few years. This defense states that parties may use copyrighted content to generate profit as long as the content is “substantially changed.” Suno seems to ban users from generating music with text prompts mentioning specific artists.

OpenAI and Microsoft Sued for Unauthorized Use of News Content

The news industry is also struggling with similar AI-related issues. In June of 2024, the Center for Investigative Reporting sued OpenAI and Microsoft for what it calls “unauthorized use of news content.” According to the media non-profit, OpenAI accessed its news content without permission and used it to train ChatGPT. This is not the first lawsuit OpenAI has faced from news organizations.

Although numerous news organizations are suing AI companies for various alleged misconduct, other news companies are embracing generative AI. Some have granted OpenAI complete access to its archives. It is worth noting, however, that Time Magazine was compensated for granting OpenAI access to its archives. In contrast, the Center for Investigative Reporting was offered no compensation whatsoever for access to its articles.

OpenAI, GitHub, and Microsoft Win Lawsuit Against Coders

Although it was once an unthinkable prospect, coders and software programmers are now facing the very serious threat of replacement by AI. Generative tools are now able to create entire lines of computer code with no human input, and this has extremely serious implications for all software engineers around the world.

Five anonymous complainants sued OpenAI, GitHub, and Microsoft for accessing “snippets” of human-generated code without permission. They alleged that the code was accessed without their permission and that this unpermitted access represented an intellectual property violation. Specifically, they claimed that GitHub violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

At the center of this lawsuit is a new GitHub tool called “Copilot,” which uses generative AI to create lines of code with simple user prompts. Again, the story seems very similar to other AI lawsuits. On the other hand, programmers have their own unique industries and cultures, including the “open-source” movement. Many programmers argue that the rise of artificial intelligence could kill this movement.

Unlike the other lawsuits mentioned so far, however, this one has seemingly been resolved. Although the plaintiffs were seeking $1 billion in damages and initially filed their lawsuit back in 2022, a judge in the Northern District of California dismissed their claims in June of 2024. The judge decided that the code had not been replicated “identically,” and therefore GitHub’s conduct did not represent a DMCA violation.

What Do These Lawsuits Tell Us?

These stories tell us that AI lawsuits seem to follow a very standardized, almost formulaic pattern. Plaintiffs argue that AI companies have accessed their material without permission, “trained” their software with this content, and profited as a result. Unfortunately, this strategy seems to be relatively ineffective in the legal world. The recent GitHub decision indicates that training an AI model on human content may not constitute an intellectual property violation. Other lawsuits could reach similar verdicts.

This is good news for new AI companies emerging in the field. Legal victories of this nature pave the way for further use of generative AI, and new entrepreneurs may find it easier to defend against similar lawsuits.

On the other hand, all it takes is one groundbreaking decision to change this legal pattern. Theoretically, a judge could rule in favor of plaintiffs – whether they are artists, programmers, or journalists. This could change the course of the legal debate.

 Contact John P. O’Brien Today

These lawsuits shed light on important new developments in the software world. However, each lawsuit is different – and no amount of online research can provide legal insights into your unique situation. For more personalized guidance, consider a consultation with an experienced technology lawyer. Choose John P. O’Brien and work with a lawyer who has spent his entire career resolving software-related legal issues. Reach out today to get started.