A landmark ruling in a federal court has determined the use of copyrighted material for the training of AI platforms does not fall under the "fair use" doctrine of U.S. copyright law. The ruling may have implications for the future of AI music generation platforms like Suno, Udio and others, which have acknowledged training on copyrighted music in the past.
“This is the kind of news we’ve dreamed of," said Bart Herbison, executive director of Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI), who provided a statement to The Tennessean. Herbison noted the decision is nuanced and still leaves some "ambiguity," but said he believes "we are headed in the right direction" on behalf of songwriters and music-rights holders seeking compensation
for their work.
"If using copyrighted material, including songs, is not 'fair use,' then AI companies who do not license songs for training are infringing as NSAI has alleged," Herbison explained. "This is the most important ruling to date for American songwriters and U.S. Copyright owners."
The ruling was made in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves. It stems from a 2020 case brought by information services company Thomson Reuters against the AI legal-research firm ROSS Intelligence.
Neither party is involved in music. The dispute comes from legal "headnotes" created by Reuters' company, Westlaw, which were then accessed by the rival ROSS Intelligence without permission and used to train an AI model.
A lower federal court ruled Westlaw’s "selection and arrangement" of the legal headnotes was a creative act similar to a sculptor chiseling a raw block of marble, meaning the work was original and worthy of copyright protection. By using it without permission for the purpose of competing with Westlaw, ROSS Intelligence violated copyright law and could not claim "fair use." The ruling may still be appealed.
"Fair use" can cover the use of copyrighted material for educational purposes, criticism or comment, news reporting or "transformational" works, where the original material is significantly expanded or changed.
“The undisputed evidence reflects that Thomson Reuters’ materials possess a creative spark, and ROSS aspired to be a direct competitor by using them for a highly similar purpose,” Montgomery-Reeves wrote in the decision. “We therefore hold that Thomson Reuters’ materials are copyrightable and that ROSS’ use was not fair.”
As AI music generators like Suno, Udio, Lyria and more came to the market in the early 2020s, they ingested massive troves of copyrighted music to train their models, while claiming the actions constituted a fair use. Major record labels including Sony Music, Universal Music Group (UMG) and Warner Music Group (WMG) are among the many parties who have sued Suno, Udio and others to dispute those claims, although WMG has since announced a settlement.
In September, Suno announced a new phase of collaboration with labels including WMG, BMG and Believe. It launched its V6 model trained on licensed music, with the potential for individual artists to opt in and allow their music to be used by the platform, earning revenue in return. In contrast, UMG and Sony sued again. The summary judgements for the UMG case have been pushed back to January 2027, with the debate over what constitutes "fair use" of copyrighted music at the crux of the legal battle.
Meanwhile, organizations like Round Hill Music have announced their own copyright infringement lawsuit against Suno, seeking up to $1 billion in damages. Important updates in that legal battle are expected to come in November 2026.
Chris Parton is a music reporter for The Tennessean. Follow him on Facebook and Instagram @partonikusmax.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Historic ruling on 'fair use' and AI may help Nashville songwriters
