Music Licensing Insights

In a MAJOR ruling for European copyright law, the Munich Regional Court has sided with Germany’s music rights society GEMA against OpenAI, finding that the company’s ChatGPT model unlawfully used copyrighted song lyrics in its training and responses. The decision, issued this morning, marks the first major European court judgment holding an AI company liable for using protected works without a licence. I got into AI through being Director of Legal Affairs and Regulatory Compliance in IMRO, the Irish counterpart of GEMA - and I know the people in GEMA - so this is very interesting to me. The case centred on GEMA’s allegation that OpenAI trained ChatGPT on its repertoire of German song lyrics, allowing the chatbot to reproduce works by artists such as Helene Fischer and Herbert Grönemeyer. The court agreed, concluding that the model’s ability to reproduce lyrics word for word demonstrated that the works had been used in training. It ruled that OpenAI is liable for copyright infringement and prohibited ChatGPT from reproducing lyrics from GEMA-represented artists unless a licence is obtained. The court also held that the European Union’s Text and Data Mining exceptions cannot shield generative AI systems that “memorise” and reproduce copyrighted material. This reasoning undermines one of the primary legal defences AI developers have relied upon in Europe. While damages will be determined in a separate proceeding, the court’s finding of liability alone sets a powerful precedent. OpenAI has announced plans to appeal. The 42nd Civil Chamber of the Munich Regional Court had indicated its position in September, when it observed that the model’s outputs could not be explained without training on copyrighted material. The final judgment confirmed that assessment. For the wider AI sector, the ruling suggests that AI companies operating in the European Union may need explicit licences for any copyrighted content used in model training or risk litigation. The decision also has regulatory implications. It aligns with growing momentum within the EU to enforce transparency and rights-holder protections under the AI Act and the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive. The GEMA v OpenAI ruling diverges sharply from Bartz v Anthropic in the United States. In Bartz, Judge Alsup found that AI training on copyrighted material could qualify as fair use, meaning no licence is required when the use is deemed transformative and non-substitutive. He viewed training as an analytical process that teaches the model general patterns rather than reproducing expression. The Munich court took the opposite view, holding that using protected works in AI training without permission constitutes reproduction requiring a licence. This illustrates the growing divide between the U.S. model, where fair use can exempt AI developers from licensing duties, and the European approach, which treats copyright as an enforceable economic right demanding prior authorisation.

Copyright lovers – Breaking news from Germany. The Regional Court Munich has handed down its judgment in the case of GEMA against OpenAI for copyright use of copyrighted (song) lyrics in ChatGPT. GEMA won the most important parts. After reading the judgment, these are my main takeaways: ·        The case is about song texts of German pop music. These lyrics were trained into ChatGPT and could be generated in the output repeatedly with very simple prompts like “What are the lyrics of the song (title of the song)?”   ·        The Munich court held that ChatGPT included a (permanent) copy (=reproduction) of the lyrics. To assess this, the Court left open how memorization works in detail for ChatGPT. It was enough that ChatGPT contained data to generate copies. Quote: “The crucial fact is that the song lyrics, which served as training data, are reproducibly contained in the model and thus embodied in it.” ·        German copyright law could be applied to this reproduction (inherent in ChatGPT) as ChatGPT was provided to the German public also from servers in Germany. ·        While AI training in general could be justified by the text and data mining (TDM) exception in sec. 44b German Copyright Act (= Art. 4 EU DSM Directive), the requirements of the TDM exception were not met for the reproduction inherent in ChatGPT. Because this reproduction was permanent. ·        Further, the Munich Court ruled that the output constituted an illegal reproduction. ChatGPT was primarily liable as ChatGPT was the reproducer.   ·        Also, ChatGPT was illegally communicating the lyrics to the public. As the lyrics could be generated with simple prompting repeatedly, the communication by ChatGPT to its users was sufficiently public. I will get back with a link to the judgment once it is published. The case is likely to be carried on at the Court of Appeal Munich, which should rule in 2026. Here you can find the official press release by the Landgericht Munich: https://lnkd.in/dTcztnbh Congratulations to GEMA CEO Tobias Holzmüllerüller, to GEMA General Counsel Dr. Kai Welp and to GEMA attorney Felix Stang.

𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐁𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐩𝐲𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐝? In April 2023, Ed Sheeran brought his guitar to a Manhattan federal courtroom to illustrate a point about musical composition. Playing through a series of songs from different eras, he demonstrated how the same chord progressions appear across genres and generations. It was an unusual defense strategy that would influence how courts view musical copyright. The case began in 2017 when the heirs of Ed Townsend, co-writer of "Let's Get It On," claimed Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" had copied key elements of their song. In May 2023, after examining the musical evidence, a Manhattan jury determined Sheeran had independently created his work. In November 2024, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, establishing that fundamental musical elements – like the chord progression in question – cannot be protected by copyright. The court essentially said that basic musical elements - like chord progressions - can't be owned. Think about that. It's like saying no chef can claim ownership of using salt and pepper together. This ruling protects the basic tools all musicians need to create. What struck me most watching this unfold was Sheeran's defense. Instead of just denying the similarities, he demonstrated how these musical building blocks appear everywhere in pop music.

The Bombay High Court has granted two weeks’ time to Kapil Sharma, his production house, and other associates of The Great Indian Kapil Show to file their response to a copyright infringement plea filed by Phonographic Performance Ltd. The allegation concerns the unauthorised use of copyrighted sound recordings as background music during live recordings of the show. PPL asserts that the sound recordings in which it holds rights were communicated to the public without the requisite licence, and that such use was routine rather than occasional. From a legal standpoint, the issue is well settled. Copyright protection over sound recordings extends to their public communication, irrespective of whether the music is foregrounded or used incidentally. Live recordings, studio audiences, and subsequent OTT dissemination all fall within the scope of public communication under copyright law. Regular and repeated use without authorisation carries legal consequences. In fact, consistency of use can strengthen a rights holder’s claim, particularly where licensing frameworks are well established and readily accessible. At this stage, the Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the dispute. The order merely allows time for the respondents to place their defence on record. However, the proceedings serve as a cautionary example for content creators and production houses operating in high volume formats. Music licensing is not a technicality. It is a statutory requirement. As OTT content continues to scale rapidly, copyright compliance will remain a central pillar of risk management in entertainment production. #India #Media #Entertainment #Copyright #Law

A German court has just ruled that OpenAI violated copyright law by training its models on music without permission. This is a major moment for the industry. GEMA, Germany’s leading music rights group, sued OpenAI for using popular songs in training data. The Munich court agreed and ordered OpenAI to pay damages. OpenAI says it may appeal, arguing the ruling covers only a limited set of lyrics, but the broader picture is hard to ignore. This case is now being called Europe’s first landmark AI and music copyright decision. A few things stand out. 1. The court confirmed that AI developers cannot treat music as free training material. GEMA’s CEO put it clearly. Human creativity is not a free template. This statement will shape many future lawsuits. 2. It is part of a larger wave of copyright challenges. OpenAI is already facing suits from The New York Times, The Intercept and Ziff Davis over unlicensed use of written content. Anthropic recently paid 1.5 billion dollars to settle claims involving pirated books. News, publishing and now music are aligned on one message. Training requires permission. 3. Transparency is becoming a legal obligation. If a developer cannot show where training data came from, courts in Europe are increasingly prepared to infer infringement. Provenance is becoming central to compliance. 4. Music may become the strictest category of all. Songs come with multiple rights layers, and AI generated vocals add new risks linked to likeness and identity. These issues go far beyond copyright alone. This ruling is more than a win for GEMA. It signals a shift. The era of unlicensed scraping is closing, and AI companies will need clear licences, documentation and proper governance to operate in Europe. Do you think this decision will push the industry toward cleaner data practices, or will litigation escalate before change takes hold? #AI #Copyright #Music #Governance #Law #Technology #OpenAI #ResponsibleAI

Big victory for #copyright (holders) in GEMA vs. OpenAI. Today, the Munich Regional Court issued Europe’s first judgment finding that OpenAI infringed copyright by (i) memorising (song) texts and (ii) displaying parts thereof in the output. The judgment on behalf of music collecting society GEMA is groundbreaking on many topics: “Both the memorisation in the language models and the reproduction of the song lyrics in the chatbot's outputs constitute infringements of copyright; not covered by any limitations, in particular [..] text and data mining.’ "Memorisation [...] occurs when the language models not only extract information from the training data set during training, but also completely adopt the training data in the parameters specified after training. [...] The song lyrics at issue are reproducibly defined in the models.”   "If not only information is extracted from training data during training, but works are also reproduced, this does not constitute text and data mining [..] In the case of reproductions in the model [..] the exploitation of the work is permanently impaired and the legitimate interests of the rights holders are thereby infringed.” “[T]he defendants also unlawfully reproduced and made publicly available the song lyrics in question by reproducing the lyrics in the chatbot's outputs. The original elements of the song lyrics would always be recognisable in the outputs.” “The defendants, and not the users, are responsible.” The judgment, if upheld, will have far-reaching consequences – a very welcome clarification on copyright law in the era of GenAI. Big congrats to GEMA, Robert Heine and his team for bringing this important precedent! Unofficial courtesy translation of Court’s press release attached.

Lead Singer, Charlie Aponte, Wins SoundExchange Royalty Dispute With El Gran Combo. Here is EVERYTHING you need to know. Backstory 1973-2014: → Aponte was the lead singer of the famous salsa orchestra, El Gran Combo. → He participated in 200 plus songs (sound recording). 2019: → El Gran Combo (and owner–Rafael Ithier) presented an action for declaratory judgment. Legal question: Who has the right to collect SoundExchange royalties as a featured artist? → Option 1: El Gran Cambo's sole owner → Option 2: El Gran Cambo's 14 individual members What is SoundExchange? SoundExchange is the only organization designated to administer non-interactive sound recording royalties. Where do SoundExchange royalties come from? SoundExchange collects and distributes royalties generated from digital transmissions, such as: → Satellite Radio → Internet Radio → Cable TV Radio For example, iHeart Radio, Pandora and Sirius XM. SoundExchange DOES NOT collect royalties from: → Apple Music → Spotify → YouTube Music How it works? SoundExchange royalty distribution works like this: → 50% to copyright owner (sound recording) → 45% to featured artist → 5% to non-featured artists via AFM and SAG-AFTRA What is the legal basis? The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 What happened? The U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico ruled Option 1: El Gran Combo's sole owner. What happened next? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston ruled Option 2: Members of musical groups, not their owners or managers, are due royalties as featured "recording artists" under federal law. Is the Grand Combo appealing the Court's decision? According to their lawyer, Puerto Rican entertainment attorney Roberto Sueiro, they won't. Consequences? Other orchestra and band members could start similar proceedings to collect said royalties. --- I'm Alexiomar Rodríguez, a music tech founder at Flou, sharing stories weekly. Also, music attorney, author and speaker. Follow me + hit 🔔 to stay tuned. --- #musicindustry #musicroyalties #musiclaw

In a significant victory for Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), the Bombay High Court at Goa has quashed the State of Goa's Circular dated January 30, 2024. This Circular had attempted to restrict the collection of royalties by copyright holders, specifically for the public performance of sound recordings at weddings, marriage-related events, and other social festivities. PPL, one of the petitioners, argued that the Circular unlawfully expanded the scope of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides exceptions for certain acts that do not constitute copyright infringement. The Court agreed with PPL, ruling that the Circular not only overreached but also interfered with the rights of copyright holders to enforce their exclusive rights. The Court emphasized that while the intent of the Circular might have been to prevent public harassment and undue demands, it cannot distort the statutory provisions of the Copyright Act. Any disputes regarding what constitutes a "bona fide religious ceremony" or "social festivities associated with marriage" should be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis rather than through a blanket administrative directive. This judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the rights of copyright holders in India, underscoring the importance of adhering to the legal framework established by the Copyright Act. It also highlights the need for a careful balance between public use and the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Mariah Carey Prevails in "All I Want for Christmas Is You" Copyright Battle A federal judge has dismissed the copyright lawsuit against Mariah Carey's iconic 1994 holiday anthem, delivering a decisive victory that reinforces critical principles in music copyright law. The Case: Andy Stone (performing as Vince Vance) claimed Carey's $60+ million-earning Christmas classic infringed on his 1989 country song of the same title, seeking $20 million in damages. The Judge found: 🔍 Insufficient Similarity: The court found the songs shared only "commonplace building blocks" - generic musical elements that cannot be copyrighted (think basic chord progressions, simple phrases, common themes) 🔍 Burden of Proof: Stone failed to demonstrate substantial similarity beyond the shared title and Christmas theme - both unprotectable elements under copyright law 🔍 Access vs. Creation: While Stone argued Carey could have heard his song due to radio play, mere access doesn't prove copying without concrete evidence of infringement This ruling reinforces that artists can't claim ownership over generic musical concepts or common phrases. Song titles alone cannot form the basis of copyright infringement - crucial for an industry where similar titles are inevitable. Dismissal protects Carey from massive damages that could have chilled future holiday music creation. Strengthens the "thin copyright" doctrine for songs using common themes and simple musical elements. This case highlights the delicate balance between protecting original creators and preventing frivolous litigation that stifles artistic innovation. In an era where AI and sampling raise new copyright questions, clear judicial guidance on what constitutes protectable expression versus common musical building blocks is invaluable. For music industry professionals, this reinforces the importance of demonstrating substantial, specific similarities rather than relying on broad claims about access or general musical themes. Mariah's Christmas reign continues unopposed! Do you think this was the right outcome?

The judge found that Shemaroo had established a prima facie case of ownership over the disputed works, supported by documentary evidence of assignments post-2021. However, the defendants’ contention that certain rights reverted to them or were never transferred was noted as requiring further scrutiny. The court recognized the potential for consumer confusion and economic harm to Shemaroo due to unauthorized digital exploitation, tipping the balance of convenience in the plaintiff’s favor. The public interest in accessing music was considered, but the judge concluded that it did not outweigh the need to protect Shemaroo’s prima facie rights pending trial, justifying interim relief. Final Decision:The High Court allowed Interim Application No. 5236 of 2022, granting an interim injunction in favor of Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. The defendants, Saregama India Limited and the other respondents, were restrained from exploiting the disputed sound recordings and underlying works on digital platforms until the final disposal of Commercial IP Suit No. 557 of 2022. However for other relief, the Court indicated that the Plaintiff has to amend the pleadings, Law Settled in This Case: This judgment clarifies that a plaintiff with prima facie evidence of copyright ownership and exclusive digital rights can secure an interim injunction against unauthorized exploitation, even in the presence of competing claims. It establishes that the balance of convenience and potential irreparable harm to the copyright holder outweigh public access considerations at the interim stage, provided the plaintiff demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success. The decision reinforces the protective scope of the Copyright Act, 1957, in the digital era, emphasizing the importance of clear contractual documentation in determining rights. Case Title: Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. vs Saregama India Limited And 2 Ors. Date of Order: 12 August, 2025 Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No. 557 of 2022 Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:13267 Name of Court: High Court of Bombay Name of Judge: Hon'ble Sharmila U. Deshmukh, H.J. Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation. Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi