AI-generated music is conquering the studios - but many people don't realise it: The supposedly easy way to free sound can be expensive. While providers such as Suno and Udio advertise "licence-free" AI songs, warnings and lawsuits are piling up. GEMA is already conducting test cases against large AI providers, and the legal situation is anything but clear.
This article covers the Seven most common legal mistakes with AI music and shows you safe alternatives with which you can not only work in a legally compliant manner, but also save costs in the long term. Because one thing is clear: ignorance is no defence against penalties - and the first waves of warning letters are already rolling in.
The 7 biggest legal misconceptions about AI music
Misconception 1: "AI-generated music is automatically GEMA-free"
The legal assessment of AI-generated music is a particularly topical issue. Many providers advertise AI music as a GEMA-free alternative, but the legal situation is anything but clear. GEMA has tightened its position to the effect that AI-generated content may also be subject to GEMA if copyright-protected works were used as the basis for its creation.
This is probably the most dangerous mistake of all. Just because an AI has generated the music does not mean that it is automatically GEMA-free. The legal situation is complex: if AI generators process copyright-protected works for training purposes, this is generally permitted as data mining, Section 44b UrhG. However, the rights holders have the option of attaching a reservation of rights to the works in machine-readable form (opt-out).
The GEMA presumption also applies to AI music. This means that as long as it cannot be clearly proven that the music used is really GEMA-free, it is assumed that GEMA rights exist. In the case of AI-generated works, this proof is practically impossible to provide, as the training data is usually kept secret.
Misconception 2: "AI cannot infringe copyrights"
GEMA was able to document that the system outputs content that obviously infringes copyrights. In terms of melody, harmony and rhythm, these largely correspond to world-famous works whose authors GEMA represents. The songs affected include those by Alphaville (Forever Young), Kristina Bach (Atemlos), Lou Bega (Mambo No. 5), Frank Farian (Daddy Cool) and Modern Talking (Cheri Cheri Lady).
The reality is different: AI systems often reproduce recognisable elements from their training data. The results clearly show that Suno Inc. has systematically used GEMA's repertoire to train its music tool and is now exploiting it commercially without financially compensating the authors of the works.
Current court proceedings confirm the problem:
- January 2025: GEMA sues Suno AI for systematic copyright infringements
- November 2024: GEMA sues OpenAI for use of protected song lyrics
- Similar proceedings in the USA against Stable Diffusion and other AI providers
Misconception 3: "Who owns the rights to AI music is clearly regulated"
The legal situation regarding the authorship of AI-generated works is a minefield. German copyright law only protects works created by humans. A purely AI-generated song would therefore not be protected by copyright. But who is liable for infringements?
The answer is sobering: Yes, anyone who uses AI sounds is responsible for this and is accordingly liable for ensuring that the use of AI sounds is in accordance with the law, i.e. that it is not unlawful.
In concrete terms, this means
- Input problem: Were protected works used for the AI training?
- Output problem: Does the generated work infringe existing rights?
- User liability: You as the user bear the risk, not the AI provider
Misconception 4: "AI songs are generally protected by copyright"
Purely AI-generated products cannot be registered as works with GEMA, as they are currently not eligible for copyright protection. The situation is different if AI is only used as an aid in the creative process, comparable to the tools of a craftsman.
This legal loophole has far-reaching consequences:
- No protection against copies: Others can use your AI-generated tracks without further ado
- No exclusive rights: Another disadvantage is the lack of exclusivity of the AI sounds: from a copyright perspective, there are generally no copyrights or other exclusive rights to the AI sounds themselves
- Unclear utilisation: Commercial use in a legal grey area
Misconception 5: "I am legally secure with pro licences from AI platforms"
Many AI platforms offer paid pro accounts and promise the transfer of all rights. But beware: Liability is likely to exist in particular if AI providers have used legally protected music, voices, sounds or other sounds and noises for their training without this being lawful. However, AI providers are generally not liable for the subsequent actual use of AI-generated sounds.
The reality of platform licences:
- Exclusion of liability for legal infringements through training data
- No guarantee for GEMA freedom
- User bears the litigation risk for warning letters
Misconception 6: "Similarities to existing songs are not a problem"
However, a recent case shows that the reality is more complicated. A YouTuber used an AI-generated voiceover for two videos. Viewers quickly realised that the voice sounded suspiciously like Bruce Willis.
The problem goes beyond mere copyrights:
- Personal rights: Imitations of well-known voices are legally problematic
- Risk of confusion: Similarities to well-known works can infringe rights
- Style vs. substance: The line between authorised style and unauthorised copying is blurred
Misconception 7: "YouTube content ID is sufficient as a legal check"
I acquired the rights through the platform. But what about potential similarities to well-known songs? To be sure, I ran the song through the YouTube Content ID test - and no copyright infringements were found.
Why that is not enough:
- Content ID only includes works that have already been registered
- New or unknown rights holders are not recognised
- System is error-prone and incomplete
- Legal review requires more than automatic detection
Criminal prosecution and warnings: This really threatens you
The legal consequences of music rights infringements are by no means theoretical. Such warnings are legally permissible and can quickly cost several hundred to thousand euros - even for first-time infringements. If legal proceedings are initiated, high legal costs can also be incurred.
Concrete cost traps:
- Warning costs: 500-2,000€ also for first-time injuries
- Damages: Often based on fictitious licence fees
- Legal fees: Four figures quickly in court proceedings
- Profit skimming: Additionally possible for commercial use
The courts usually rule strictly in cases of music rights infringements - even for supposedly "minor offences". A few examples: A YouTuber used a well-known pop song in his monetised video. Result: warning letter + €800 in damages + legal fees. A company used music from Universal Music in an Instagram advertising video. As there was no commercial licence, it had to pay a four-figure sum - despite only 30 seconds of music.
Particularly risky: If it turns out that these systems use protected works as a basis, this could lead to considerable retroactive additional claims. There is therefore a high financial risk for companies that use AI-generated music.
Safe alternatives to AI music
While with AI-generated GEMA-free music If important legal questions about authorship and liability remain unresolved, established providers such as sonicsense offer legally compliant alternatives. With over 33 individually mixable GEMA-free channels and thousands of tracks by genuine international artists, companies can save up to 100 per cent of GEMA costs.
The decisive advantages:
- Legal certainty: Real composers with clear rights
- Verifiability: sonicsense can submit detailed evidence to GEMA if a check is carried out - a security that AI music providers often cannot offer.
- Professional quality: No compromises in music quality
- Planning security: Fixed costs without surprises
An intelligent strategy for reducing costs lies in the combination of music subject to GEMA and GEMA-free music. Companies can use different music sources for different areas: High-quality music subject to GEMA in main sales areas and low-cost GEMA-free alternatives in secondary areas.
Multi-zone sound reinforcement:
- Main areas: GEMA-liable music for maximum effect
- Ancillary areas: GEMA-free alternatives to reduce costs
- Flexible control depending on time of day and customer frequency
sonicsense: Your partner for legally compliant music solutions
As a leading provider of commercial sound reinforcement systems, sonicsense offers the perfect Alternative to risky AI music. With over 37 years of experience in music licensing, we specialise in legally compliant and cost-effective solutions.
Our comprehensive range
GEMA-free portfolio:
- 33+ individually mixable GEMA-free channels
- Over 40,000 new songs from almost 600 international artists
- Continuous updates: 1,000 new songs every 3 months
- Top quality without legal risks
GEMA-liable premium channels:
- 175+ professionally curated channels
- Current chart hits and proven classics
- Different genres and moods
- Optimum customer approach through well-known music
Legal certainty through GEMU partnership
A special advantage: sonicsense is a partner of the Association of Commercial Users of High-Quality Music (GEMU) e. V. This connection offers you:
- Legal expertise: Sound legal advice on all GEMA and licence issues
- Process management: Support with legal disputes and court proceedings
- 20% Discount: Guaranteed cost savings on all GEMA licences
- All-round service: Complete management of all form, registration and deadline monitoring tasks
How to check your current music for GEMA obligations
GEMA check in 5 steps:
- Repertoire search: Check every title in the GEMA database
- Artist status: Is the composer a GEMA member?
- Proof of licence: Do you have valid licence agreements?
- Type of utilisation: Does your usage match the licence you have purchased?
- Documentation: Is all evidence complete and can it be found?
Should you receive a warning letter from GEMA:
- Keep calm: Do not react hastily
- Contact a lawyer: Obtain specialised legal advice
- Stop music: Pause objectionable titles immediately
- Collect documentation: Compile all relevant documents
- Note the deadline: Always comply with legal deadlines
Why established providers are ultimately the better choice
The lure of AI-generated music is understandable: fast, seemingly free and unlimited availability. However, the legal risks are real and the costs in the event of damage are often higher than years of licence fees from established providers.
The reality of AI music:
- Unresolved legal situation with high liability risk
- Retroactive additional claims possible
- No legal certainty despite Pro licences
- Fluctuations in quality and lack of curation
The advantages of established providers:
- Clear legal structures and verifiable licences
- Professional curation and consistent quality
- Comprehensive service and legal support
- Plannable costs without nasty surprises
AI music will undoubtedly play an important role in the future - but only once the legal framework has been clarified. Until then, companies should rely on proven, legally compliant solutions.
Your next step towards legal certainty:
Let us consult now without obligationhow you can not only work legally compliant with professional music solutions, but also optimise your GEMA costs. sonicsense is your reliable partner with over 37 years of experience.
