Sam Altman and OpenAI lost a lawsuit against German GEMA. (Photo: Frank Robichon/EPA/NTB)
Historic verdict in Germany
A German court has ruled that OpenAI violated copyright by training its AI model on song lyrics without permission. “A historic and important victory for music creators, and an important step on the path towards better regulation of artificial intelligence,” says TONO CEO Karl Vestli.
/ 17/11/2025 / Willy MartinsenThe ruling, announced on November 11, is the first major and principled one in Europe to set limits on how generative AI can use music and lyrics. It is not yet clear whether OpenAI will appeal, and the ruling is not legally binding.
– The ruling establishes that copyright also applies to AI companies, and that they cannot use people's creative work for free and without permission. This is a new and important clarification of principle that could have great significance for future AI training in Europe, and which could help restore some of the balance between copyright holders and technology companies, says Vestli.
GEMA based its lawsuit on nine specific song lyrics. The court ruled that both the storage of the song lyrics in the model's parameters ("memorization") and the reproduction of the lyrics in ChatGPT's responses constitute copyright infringement.
OpenAI claimed that the training was legal under the exception for “text and data mining” in German copyright. This was rejected by the court, which ruled that the exception only applies to temporary copies for analysis purposes, not permanent storage of works in the model parameters. When an AI model actually memorizes and can reproduce parts of works, it goes beyond the scope of legal data mining and is an infringement of the author's rights.
– The court also assumed that such reproductions are covered by the EU's Infosoc Directive, and ruled that even data stored as probability values in the model's parameters can constitute a copy if the text can be reproduced, says lawyer and department director at TONO, Inger Elise Mey.
The court also rejected GEMA's claim for infringement of personal rights related to altered song lyrics.
TONO sees the ruling as a clear confirmation of the principle the company has long advocated to both Norwegian and European authorities: AI companies cannot hide behind copyright exceptions. They must enter into licensing agreements with the rights holders and share the revenue with the human creators. This is in line with other digital services that use copyrighted music.
– The German ruling is an important step towards closing the new value gap that has emerged with the rise of artificial intelligence. AI companies have enormous revenues based on copyrighted content. If creators do not receive a share of the value they help to create, an imbalance arises that must be redressed. The ruling shows that the legal system is beginning to understand this, says Mey.
The American AI companies have claimed that training on protected music is covered by fair use-exemptions, which exempt them from having to declare such use. However, this does not apply in Europe.
– If the Munich ruling stands, it could form the basis for a common European practice, and could have significance far beyond Germany's borders. It also confirms what TONO has argued with both the EU and Norwegian authorities: Licensing and transparency must be the basis for all models of artificial intelligence that use music and creative works. The ruling gives hope for a fair digital ecosystem where technology and art can develop hand in hand with respect for each other, says Mey.
Karl Vestli points out that the judgment is not only about legal principles, but also about important clarification of the framework for the AI economy.
– It is crucial that good and well-functioning frameworks are established for this economy, and that they create value for both the rights holders and the KI companies. Collective licensing of music rights enables KI value creation while at the same time the rights holders receive their rightful share of it. This is a new area, and a framework must be established for this part of the music economy. A ruling like this does not solve the whole problem, but is still an important step on the way, concludes Vestli.