In the ongoing collision between creative legacy and algorithmic ambition, Sony Music has opened a second legal front against AI music generator Udio, pursuing over 30,000 recordings that a judge had previously set aside from the original complaint. The move is less a single lawsuit than a declaration of strategy — an assertion that the music industry's largest stewards will exhaust every legal avenue before conceding ground to platforms that train machines on the labor of human artists. At stake is not merely one company's catalog, but the question of whether copyright, as a concept, can surv
Sony Files Second Lawsuit Against Udio Over 30,000 Copyrighted Recordings
Sony has made clear it will not accept judicial limitations
Mark
Why would Sony file the same lawsuit twice? Doesn't that seem redundant?
Mimi
The judge didn't let them file it once—he excluded 30,000 songs from the original case. So Sony's doing an end-run around that decision by filing separately, with just those excluded recordings.
Mark
That's clever. But does it actually work? Can you just re-file what a judge told you not to file?
Mimi
That's the question, isn't it. Sony's betting that because it's technically a different case, with different songs, it's not the same lawsuit. Whether a court agrees is another matter.
Mark
What's Udio's actual defense here? They're training on copyrighted music—that seems pretty straightforward.
Mimi
They'd argue it's fair use, or that training an AI model on existing work is transformative enough to fall outside copyright law. But Sony and other labels say that's a dodge—they're using the music without permission or payment.
Mark
And if Sony wins?
Mimi
Then AI music companies would need licenses to train on copyrighted material, which gets expensive and complicated. If Udio wins, it opens the door wider for AI platforms to use whatever data they can find.
Le Pouls
- A judge's attempt to narrow Sony's original case has backfired — rather than limiting the dispute, it has multiplied it, with 30,000 songs now forming the basis of an entirely separate lawsuit.
- The friction is elemental: AI platforms need vast musical libraries to learn, and those libraries belong to someone — a tension that no licensing framework yet fully resolves.
- Independent artists are beginning to organize alongside major labels, recognizing that the threat of unconsented training data absorption does not discriminate by the size of one's catalog.
- Sony's multi-front legal strategy is designed to exhaust Udio's defenses, keep the issue visible, and send a warning signal to every other AI music company watching from the sidelines.
- The outcome hangs between two futures — one where AI training requires explicit licensing agreements, and one where fair use arguments open the floodgates for machine learning on protected creative work.
In the ongoing collision between creative legacy and algorithmic ambition, Sony Music has opened a second legal front against AI music generator Udio, pursuing over 30,000 recordings that a judge had previously set aside from the original complaint. The move is less a single lawsuit than a declaration of strategy — an assertion that the music industry's largest stewards will exhaust every legal avenue before conceding ground to platforms that train machines on the labor of human artists. At stake is not merely one company's catalog, but the question of whether copyright, as a concept, can survive the age of generative intelligence.
Sony Music has filed a second lawsuit against Udio, the AI music generator, targeting more than 30,000 recordings that a judge had excluded from the company's original complaint. Rather than accept that judicial narrowing as a boundary, Sony has treated it as a starting point — filing a separate action to keep those songs in contention and the broader dispute very much alive.
The underlying conflict is one the music industry has been bracing for since generative AI began producing convincing sound. Platforms like Udio train their models on enormous libraries of existing music, much of it copyrighted. Labels argue this is infringement; AI companies counter that training falls within fair use or that the technology itself does not constitute copying in any legally meaningful sense. Neither side has yet found a courtroom willing to draw a definitive line.
Sony's decision to pursue parallel litigation suggests it sees the stakes as too high for a single legal strategy. A second case allows for additional evidence, additional songs, and potentially different judicial outcomes — while also sustaining public and industry pressure on AI platforms more broadly.
The concern has spread well beyond corporate boardrooms. Independent artists, led in part by advocates like Tony Justice, have begun organizing around AI copyright issues, worried that their recordings could be absorbed into training datasets without their knowledge or any form of compensation. The vulnerability, they argue, is not unique to major labels.
Whatever verdict eventually emerges will carry consequences far beyond Sony and Udio. A ruling in Sony's favor could require AI music companies to negotiate explicit licensing agreements before training on protected works. A ruling for Udio could accelerate the use of existing music in machine learning with few restrictions. Regulators and lawmakers are watching closely, and the legal machinery — now running on multiple tracks simultaneously — shows no sign of slowing.
Sony Music has filed a second lawsuit against Udio, the AI music generator, this time targeting over 30,000 recordings that a judge had previously excluded from the company's initial complaint. The move signals an escalation in the legal battle between major record labels and artificial intelligence platforms over the use of copyrighted material in training datasets.
The original case, brought by Sony against Udio, had been narrowed by judicial decision—a judge determined that certain songs could not be included in that first filing. Rather than accept that limitation, Sony has now filed a separate action specifically addressing those 30,000 excluded recordings, effectively circumventing the earlier ruling and keeping the dispute alive on a broader front.
This second lawsuit reflects the intensifying friction between the music industry's largest corporations and the emerging wave of AI music generation tools. The core tension is straightforward: Udio and similar platforms train their models on vast databases of existing music, much of it protected by copyright. Record labels argue this constitutes infringement and that these companies should not be permitted to use their artists' work without permission or compensation. Udio and its defenders counter that such training falls within fair use or that the technology itself is not inherently infringing.
Sony's decision to pursue a second case suggests the company views the stakes as high enough to warrant multiple legal strategies. By filing separately, Sony can present additional evidence, name additional songs, and potentially reach different outcomes in different proceedings. It also keeps the matter in the public eye and signals to other AI music companies that major labels will pursue every available legal avenue to protect their catalogs.
The case has drawn attention beyond the corporate boardrooms. Independent artists and smaller rights holders have also begun organizing around AI copyright issues, with figures like Tony Justice leading efforts to ensure that musicians of all sizes have a voice in how their work is treated by these new technologies. The concern is not limited to major labels—independent creators worry that their music, too, could be absorbed into training datasets without their knowledge or consent.
What happens in this lawsuit could reshape how AI companies approach copyrighted material. If Sony prevails, it may establish that platforms cannot simply train on protected works without explicit licensing agreements. If Udio succeeds in its defense, it could open the door for broader use of existing music in AI training. Either way, the outcome will likely influence how regulators and lawmakers approach generative AI in creative industries, potentially leading to new rules about what data AI companies can access and how they must compensate rights holders.
For now, the legal machinery grinds forward. Sony has made clear it will not accept judicial limitations on its ability to pursue copyright claims. Udio faces the prospect of defending itself on multiple fronts simultaneously. And the broader music industry watches to see whether the old rules of copyright can hold in an age of machine learning.
Citations marquantes
Sony's decision to pursue a second case suggests the company views the stakes as high enough to warrant multiple legal strategies— The lawsuit itself
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur Google News ↗
Crime & Justice