Suno seeks dismissal of Jason Isbell identity lawsuit on free-speech grounds

Suno has asked a federal judge in Massachusetts to dismiss a proposed class action brought by Jason Isbell and three other musicians, arguing that references to performers’ names as musical shorthand are protected speech rather than an unlawful commercial use of identity.

The AI music company filed the motion Nov. 3. Its central contention is that artists cannot use state right-of-publicity laws to gain exclusive control over broad musical styles, or prevent people from using their names to describe genres and creative reference points.

The suit was brought in August by Isbell, David Lowery, Guy Forsyth and Eduardo Calle. As covered in September, the musicians allege that Suno used their names, voices and other identifying characteristics without permission to generate music, and they seek to represent other performers whose identities may have been used similarly.

Their case rests principally on state publicity rights, which can protect against certain commercial uses of a person’s name, likeness and identity. It is therefore distinct from copyright cases alleging the unauthorized copying of recordings. Suno separately faces a copyright lawsuit from Universal Music Group and Sony Music over allegations that it trained AI models on protected recordings without permission.

Suno says its platform converts an artist name in a prompt into descriptive musical attributes before the prompt reaches its music-generation model. A reference to Duran Duran, for example, might be translated into new wave, synth-pop and pop rock, according to the company’s argument.

Andrew Gass, a lawyer for Suno, wrote that people commonly use artists’ names as shorthand for the genres they perform in. The company likened the technology to a musician asking a producer for “more of a Jason Isbell vibe,” arguing that such a request does not create copyright infringement or likely confusion about who performs the resulting work.

The filing also invokes the First Amendment and federal copyright law. Suno argues that Congress chose not to grant intellectual-property protection to artistic styles so that later creators could build on earlier work within a genre. Allowing the plaintiffs’ theory, it says, would create a state-law intellectual-property regime that conflicts with the federal system.

The musicians counter that translating names into musical descriptions does not erase the alleged use of identity. They argue that Suno was designed to recognise artists and associate them with particular sounds, and claim users can evade its protections by adding spaces between letters in a name or by using a performer’s legal name rather than a stage name.

The complaint also alleges that Suno retained artists’ “voiceprints” and that prompts referring to a performer’s tone or phrasing could circumvent guardrails. Suno has denied the allegations concerning retained voiceprints and guardrail bypasses.

U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley had not ruled on the dismissal request at the time of the reports. The musicians’ response is due Dec. 1, followed by Suno’s reply deadline of Dec. 15.