The takeaway: The biggest copyright fight in AI just tilted. A New York judge has refused to let Sony Music add 30,442 recordings to its case against AI music generator Udio — capping the maximum statutory exposure in that case at roughly $50m instead of $4.6bn — and Suno, the other big AI music defendant, seized on the ruling within days to fight a 61,000-song expansion of its own case. Behind both moves sits the real event: summary judgment on whether training an AI music model on copyrighted recordings is fair use — the first time a federal court squarely decides that question. When it happens is itself contested: one report claimed a July hearing; the case schedule reported in March put the motions deadline in January 2027.

The ruling

Sony's case against Udio has always formally concerned 333 recordings. In May, with document discovery nearly done, Sony moved to add 30,442 more — and on 2 July, Judge Alvin Hellerstein said no: "Adding more than 30,000 works near the close of document discovery would require substantial additional production and review, generate further disputes, and materially alter the scope of the case before me." Sony can still sue over the other works — "there is no requirement that it be done in this lawsuit" — but not here, and not now.

The arithmetic explains the stakes. US copyright law caps statutory damages for wilful infringement at $150,000 per work: 333 works means a ceiling around $50m; 30,775 works would have meant one around $4.6bn. (That's our multiplication, not the court's.)

Suno pounces

Within days, Suno asked the judge in its case — Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV in Massachusetts — to refuse UMG and Sony's pending motion to add 61,026 recordings (identified by audio-fingerprinting, and described by the labels as "only a small fraction" of the matches their experts found). Suno's filing calls the tactic "a too-familiar page from the standard playbook of aggregate music rightsholders: file an action asserting 'representative' works, let the litigation proceed through discovery for years, then attempt to expand the list of works exponentially at the close of fact discovery." And the line that matters most: "After two years of extensive fact discovery, Suno is entitled to a timely consideration of its fair use defense." That motion is filed, not decided.

The main event: fair use

Both cases are manoeuvring around the same approaching moment: summary judgment on fair use before Judge Saylor — the first time a federal court would squarely decide whether training an AI music model on copyrighted recordings is transformative fair use. When that moment comes is itself contested: a June report flagged a July hearing, but the case schedule reported in March put the summary-judgment motions deadline at 8 January 2027, and neither of this week's filings mentions a July date — Suno's plea for "timely consideration" reads, if anything, like a company still waiting for its slot. Discovery has already established the scale: Suno acknowledged its model trained on tens of millions of recordings that "presumably included" the labels' catalogue. If training is fair use, the works-count fights above become footnotes. If it isn't, every added work is $150,000 of ceiling.

Why one label is still fighting

The industry has mostly chosen licensing over litigation: UMG settled with Udio in October and announced a joint licensed AI platform due in 2026; Warner settled with both Udio and Suno in November; Merlin and Kobalt followed; and last month the US publishers' body struck the first industry-wide AI licensing pacts with Udio and AI startup KLAY — paying songwriters on a par with recordings on the training side; output-side splits weren't disclosed. Sony Music is now the only major without a Udio deal — the holdout betting the courtroom beats the negotiating table — and on Suno, UMG fights alongside it.

For UK readers the backdrop is the government's March U-turn: after the creative industries' campaign, ministers dropped the planned opt-out copyright exception for AI training and are now explicitly watching how litigation and licensing markets develop before legislating. Which makes the coming Massachusetts fair-use decision more than an American story: it is exactly the evidence Westminster says it's waiting for.

Disclosure: On The Wire runs on Anthropic models. We flag it when we cover AI, including the industries contesting it.