Germany: AI Alone Can't Override Copyright Law

⚡

Key Takeaways

1A German court has confirmed that lyrics written by a person remain protected by copyright, even if the music is generated by AI.

2An artist used protected lyrics in her song, distributing it on Spotify, despite the refusal of rights.

3The court rejected the argument that AI-generated text cannot be protected, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence.

💡Why it matters — This decision strengthens the protection of creators in the face of the growing use of AI in music production.

A German Court Strengthens Copyright Protection in the Age of AI

In Germany, a regional court has recently made a ruling that could have significant implications for how copyright is perceived in the era of artificial intelligence. The court ruled that lyrics written by a person remain protected by copyright, even if the accompanying music was generated by an artificial intelligence, specifically SunoAI.

The Case of Written and Modified Lyrics

The case began when the plaintiff wrote lyrics in April 2025 and entrusted them to a producer. The producer used AI to compose a song based on these lyrics. During the AI-assisted creation process, the plaintiff continued to intervene in the lyrics, making personal modifications. This active involvement played a crucial role in the court's decision.

Unauthorized Use and Public Promotion

Another artist attempted to claim rights over these lyrics, but her request was rejected. Despite this, she incorporated significant parts of the lyrics into her own song, which she then distributed on platforms like Spotify. She even publicly admitted on Twitch that she planned to go on tour with a song that did not belong to her. On Instagram, she encouraged her followers to listen to the track before it could potentially be banned.

The Defense Invokes AI to Challenge Copyright

During the hearings, the defense argued that the lyrics were entirely generated by AI, relying on the opinion of a music expert. This expert pointed out logical inconsistencies, repetitive sentence structures, and a lack of poetic quality, which he claimed were characteristic of automated production. Based on this, the defense asserted that there was no copyright to claim.

The Court Requires Concrete Evidence

The court clarified that if a party claims that a work is generated by AI, they must provide tangible evidence. In this specific case, the plaintiff presented a credible statement asserting that he had written the lyrics himself. The court also noted that stylistic breaks can be a legitimate artistic expression, especially in the context of song lyrics. Therefore, the expert's opinion was not upheld.

Legal Consequences and Possible Appeal

The court issued a temporary injunction against the distribution company, prohibiting the broadcasting and promotion of the disputed song. This decision may be subject to appeal, but it already establishes an important precedent.

Implications for Creators Using AI

This ruling emphasizes that declaring a work to be generated by AI is not enough to nullify copyright. Creators who document their creative process, including the use of AI, find themselves in a stronger position in the event of a dispute. This decision could influence how copyright is protected in a world where AI plays an increasing role in artistic creation.