Suno Hit with Fresh Copyright Lawsuits from Elvis Presley and Eminem Rights Holders

Elvis Presley and Eminem Rights Holders Target Suno

Elvis Presley Enterprises and Eight Mile Style LLC have filed separate lawsuits against Suno in California federal court, marking the latest legal battles over AI music generation. The complaints, filed on November 6 in the Northern District of California, accuse the $5.4 billion AI music generator of copyright infringement through unauthorized use of music catalogs3

3

. Elvis Presley Enterprises, joined by Raleigh Music Publishing and individual rights holders, claims Suno infringed 859 works ranging from "Can't Help Falling in Love" to Chubby Checker hits3

3

. Eight Mile Style and Martin Affiliated, controlling 269 Eminem compositions, filed the second suit focusing purely on copyright violations1

1

.

Unprecedented Voice Theft Claims Under ELVIS Act

The Presley lawsuit breaks new ground by invoking Tennessee's ELVIS Act, a 2024 law protecting a person's voice alongside name and likeness. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs argue that Suno's actions "make human creativity obsolete, coldly replicating without a license in seconds what takes years to learn, struggle with, maintain, and endlessly attempt to make better and perfect"2

2

. The complaint states "all of the humanity, history, despair, and triumph that constitutes Elvis' identity was stolen," detailing how Suno produced songs in Presley's voice when given only lyrics with his name spelled out letter by letter3

3

. The suit attaches 38 recordings allegedly copying his voice, including "Elvis in The Jailhouse Rock" with over 125,000 plays3

3

.

AI Training Data Sourced from Stream Ripping

Both complaints cite Suno's own description of its AI training data as "essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open Internet"3

3

. The lawsuits accuse Suno of stream ripping, copying audio from YouTube using tools that circumvent encryption. Leaked code allegedly shows Suno collected 2.06 million YouTube Music artist records and 6.98 million song pages from lyrics site Genius, some gathered through data firm Bright Data3

3

. The Eminem complaint presents side-by-side lyrics comparisons, showing tracks like "Lose Yourself By Eminem" copying verses and choruses nearly word for word3

3

.

Suno's Defense and Blocking Mechanisms

Suno countered with a statement asserting it doesn't allow "any unauthorized use of an artist's work," specifying prohibitions on using "specific artists' names and songs" while working with third-party companies to screen for "potential misuse"2

2

. However, both suits claim Suno's artist name blocks are easily circumvented. The Eminem complaint references a $29 guide selling "Eminem-style prompts for Suno," and both point to creators in Suno's paid affiliate scheme teaching users to replicate artist sounds without naming them3

3

. In a separate case led by singer Jason Isbell, Suno argued its outputs "do not replicate the auditory characteristics of any real artist's voice to the point that someone would confuse a Suno creation with one actually sung by a particular famous musician"3

3

.

Growing Legal Pressure and Industry Stakes

These lawsuits join mounting legal battles over AI music. Universal Music Group and Sony Music sued Suno again in September over its v6 models, while Warner Music Group dropped its lawsuit last year in favor of a licensing deal2

2

. Round Hill Music, Gerencia 360, and Jason Isbell have filed additional suits, with a Munich court ruling in July that Suno broke copyright in a case brought by GEMA3

3

. Suno reported over 2 million paying subscribers and $300 million in annual revenue as of February3

3

. The Presley group seeks up to $128.85 million in statutory damages plus over $50 million under the ELVIS Act, which they want tripled because Presley served in the US Army. Eight Mile Style seeks up to $40.35 million3

3

. Both demand jury trials and destruction of copies held in Suno's training data and model weights, setting precedents for how AI-generated content will be regulated as the technology reshapes creative industries and intellectual property law.