Sony sues Udio over 30,000 songs in copyright case

Sony Music Entertainment has filed a new lawsuit against Udio, an AI music generator, alleging that the platform infringed the copyright of over 30,000 songs. The legal action, submitted in a New York court on Monday, claims that the listed tracks represent only a small fraction of the works Udio has unlawfully used. The affected songs include iconic recordings such as Elvis Presley's "Hound Dog," Beyoncé's "Say My Name," and Harry Styles' "As It Was."

This lawsuit targets Udio, a company that creates music using artificial intelligence, and follows a broader legal campaign by major record labels. In 2024, Sony, together with Universal Music Group and Warner Records, filed a separate lawsuit against both Udio and another AI music generator called Suno. The current case emerged after Sony gained access to Udio's training data through the discovery process in that earlier litigation.

The significance of this case lies in its potential to set legal boundaries for how AI companies can use copyrighted music to train their models. The music industry has been increasingly concerned about AI systems that generate songs based on vast catalogs of existing recordings without permission or compensation. Sony's lawsuit argues that Udio's use of these 30,000 songs constitutes direct copyright infringement, and the company is seeking damages and an injunction to stop further unauthorized use.

According to the court filing, the 30,000-song list is not exhaustive, and Sony indicates that many more works may have been infringed. The case is part of a growing wave of litigation against AI companies by content creators, including authors, visual artists, and news publishers. As the legal process unfolds, the outcome could influence how AI music generators operate and whether they need to license the material they use for training.

The next steps will involve Udio responding to the allegations in court. If Sony prevails, it could lead to significant financial penalties for Udio and potentially reshape the business models of AI music platforms. The case also highlights the ongoing tension between technological innovation and copyright protection in the creative industries.