Elvis Presley rights owners sue Suno over AI voice cloning

The lawsuit against Suno

Elvis Presley Enterprises, a unit of Authentic Brands Group, has filed a lawsuit against the AI music firm Suno. The company controls the intellectual property tied to Presley, including his name, image, and extensive song catalog. They argue that Suno has violated these rights by allowing users to create knockoff vocals that mimic the singer's identity.

The lawsuit, filed on November 6, claims that Suno's platform enables the production of synthetic music that sounds remarkably like Presley. Richard Busch, a music litigator who filed the case, argues that the AI firm is financially benefiting from the theft of Presley's history and humanity. He characterizes the actions as intentional and fraudulent attempts to compete with the artist's likeness.

In a statement to Billboard, a Suno spokeswoman defended the company by saying it exists to help people create original music. They stated that they do not allow prompts for specific artists' names and work with third-party providers to screen audio files. The company maintains that it is constantly working to strengthen its guardrails to protect both artists and users.

The ELVIS Act in action

This legal battle marks one of the first major actions taken under a new Tennessee law called the ELVIS Act. The statute was recently enacted to address the specific problems caused by artificial intelligence and deepfakes. Unlike older laws that often only applied to commercial advertisements, this new law makes it easier for musicians to sue for unauthorized likeness use.

The ELVIS Act specifically imposes liability on technology firms that provide the tools used for unauthorized voice and image cloning. The lawsuit describes Suno as the embodiment of why this specific legislation was required. It seeks to hold the platform accountable for providing the means to replicate a signature voice on a massive scale.

By using this new statute, the rights owners are attempting to establish a legal standard for AI accountability. The goal is to prevent tech companies from simply hosting tools that allow for the erosion of a performer's unique identity. This case will test the power and limits of the law in a high-profile environment.

How the AI mimics the voice

The lawsuit highlights how distinctively recognizable Presley's voice is as a musical signature. It describes his vocal timbre as having a warm, velvety resonance and a perfectly employed vibrato. The legal filing argues that these specific characteristics are what make his voice a valuable and protected asset.

The plaintiffs claim that Suno's models can generate these recognizable aspects even when users provide simple prompts. They allege that entering a musician's name into the 'Create' function causes the platform to produce unauthorized output. The lawsuit includes links to videos showing how the platform can play songs that sound remarkably similar to the singer.

Suno has argued in other cases that its models do not allow for the direct theft of specific voices. They have previously claimed that artist names are often used as shorthand for a specific genre of music. However, the Elvis owners call these claims false and argue that the platform is replicating human creativity in seconds.

A broader legal battle

This case is part of a larger wave of litigation involving Suno and other AI music firms. The company is also facing a lawsuit from the publishers of Eminem's catalog regarding his copyrighted hits. These cases mirror the Elvis suit by alleging that AI models were trained on copyrighted works without permission.

Suno has already faced legal challenges from all three major music companies regarding AI training. While they reached a settlement with Warner Music Group last year, they are still litigating with UMG and Sony Music. These labels have shown no interest in striking a deal with the AI firm at this time.

The Elvis and Eminem cases represent some of the most significant actions filed on behalf of individual musicians against AI. They highlight a growing conflict between the rapid development of generative technology and the protection of human artistry. The outcome of these suits will likely shape the future of the music industry and copyright law.