Suno's current terms require people uploading audio to confirm they hold the rights needed for Suno to use it, including for model training. The language now sits inside Universal, and Sony's argument that Suno understood permission mattered before the labels filed their first copyright case.
The contrast is easy to see. Suno asks users to clear rights before handing music to the platform, while the labels allege Suno copied their commercial recordings into its training corpus without asking. Their new complaint uses the mismatch to support a claim of knowing and willful infringement.
Still, the clause does not settle the case by itself. the labels' second Suno copyright case turns on copyright law, fair use, evidence about Suno's conduct, and what a court or jury accepts. A private contract can show what risks a company recognized without automatically proving those risks became legal obligations elsewhere.
The license Suno receives is broad. Users grant a worldwide, non-exclusive, fully paid-up, sublicensable, assignable, royalty-free, perpetual and irrevocable license covering reproduction, storage, modification, distribution and improvement of Suno's products and AI systems. Suno also tells users not to submit material that infringes somebody else's intellectual property.
For anyone trying to understand Suno upload rights, merely having a copy of a song is not enough. The terms put responsibility on the uploader to have authority for Suno's downstream use as well. Uploaded audio therefore carries a different contractual burden from typing a text prompt.
Universal and Sony focus on this asymmetry. They say Suno protected itself contractually when users supplied music, yet did not obtain equivalent permission from the labels for recordings allegedly used to build its models. Their complaint treats the difference as evidence about knowledge, not merely awkward wording.
Current language, effective September 3, 2026, is more explicit about AI development. Uploaded material may be used in connection with training, developing, fine-tuning or improving machine-learning models, while the uploader warrants that no additional permission or payment is required. Suno did not start clearing rights for user uploads only after litigation arrived.
Suno's product guidance follows the same pattern. Its help material warns users not to assume rights over uploaded audio they did not create, while its terms allow removal of infringing submissions. Those protections are ordinary platform risk controls, but they also give the labels a document trail when arguing Suno understood copyright clearance as a business concern.
Suno has a separate legal answer. In the original case, it has argued that copying involved in model training is fair use, which would mean no copyright license was required for uses protected by that defense. Contractual caution and a fair-use position can coexist, even if the combination creates an obvious line of attack.
Universal and Sony use Suno's terms alongside other evidence. Their complaint also points to Suno's later licensing deals, its use of huge numbers of recordings, and other conduct they say shows the company knew permission was required. Suno can respond that its contracts manage platform risk while its training practices rest on an independent fair-use theory.
The distinction matters for users too. A warranty in Suno's terms governs what you promise Suno when uploading material. It does not create a universal rule that every act of machine learning involving copyrighted content infringes unless a license exists.
No court has adopted Universal and Sony's interpretation merely because the wording looks uncomfortable for Suno. The upload clause may be useful evidence about what the company anticipated and protected against, while willfulness still depends on the full record and the legal treatment of the underlying copying. The contract exposes a concrete difference between the permissions Suno demands from users and the permissions the labels say Suno never sought for itself.
The contrast is easy to see. Suno asks users to clear rights before handing music to the platform, while the labels allege Suno copied their commercial recordings into its training corpus without asking. Their new complaint uses the mismatch to support a claim of knowing and willful infringement.
Still, the clause does not settle the case by itself. the labels' second Suno copyright case turns on copyright law, fair use, evidence about Suno's conduct, and what a court or jury accepts. A private contract can show what risks a company recognized without automatically proving those risks became legal obligations elsewhere.
Suno required permission before users could upload music
Current Suno terms tell users to upload only material they have rights to use. Uploaders warrant that they possess the necessary rights, licenses, consents, and permissions, and they promise that Suno will not need another authorization or payment arising from use of those submissions to train, develop, fine-tune, or improve its models.The license Suno receives is broad. Users grant a worldwide, non-exclusive, fully paid-up, sublicensable, assignable, royalty-free, perpetual and irrevocable license covering reproduction, storage, modification, distribution and improvement of Suno's products and AI systems. Suno also tells users not to submit material that infringes somebody else's intellectual property.
For anyone trying to understand Suno upload rights, merely having a copy of a song is not enough. The terms put responsibility on the uploader to have authority for Suno's downstream use as well. Uploaded audio therefore carries a different contractual burden from typing a text prompt.
Universal and Sony focus on this asymmetry. They say Suno protected itself contractually when users supplied music, yet did not obtain equivalent permission from the labels for recordings allegedly used to build its models. Their complaint treats the difference as evidence about knowledge, not merely awkward wording.
The contract predates the first label lawsuit
Timing gives the argument some weight. The complaint points to terms operative in January 2024, more than four months before the first major-label lawsuit was filed in June 2024, and says those terms already required users to grant Suno a sweeping license over submitted content.Current language, effective September 3, 2026, is more explicit about AI development. Uploaded material may be used in connection with training, developing, fine-tuning or improving machine-learning models, while the uploader warrants that no additional permission or payment is required. Suno did not start clearing rights for user uploads only after litigation arrived.
Suno's product guidance follows the same pattern. Its help material warns users not to assume rights over uploaded audio they did not create, while its terms allow removal of infringing submissions. Those protections are ordinary platform risk controls, but they also give the labels a document trail when arguing Suno understood copyright clearance as a business concern.
Suno has a separate legal answer. In the original case, it has argued that copying involved in model training is fair use, which would mean no copyright license was required for uses protected by that defense. Contractual caution and a fair-use position can coexist, even if the combination creates an obvious line of attack.
Willfulness still requires more than an awkward clause
Willfulness matters because it can raise the statutory damages ceiling for an infringed work. Yet the Copyright Act does not turn every inconsistent contract position into willful infringement. Copyright willfulness turns on mental state, with courts examining knowledge, reckless disregard, or similar evidence depending on the governing standard and facts.Universal and Sony use Suno's terms alongside other evidence. Their complaint also points to Suno's later licensing deals, its use of huge numbers of recordings, and other conduct they say shows the company knew permission was required. Suno can respond that its contracts manage platform risk while its training practices rest on an independent fair-use theory.
The distinction matters for users too. A warranty in Suno's terms governs what you promise Suno when uploading material. It does not create a universal rule that every act of machine learning involving copyrighted content infringes unless a license exists.
No court has adopted Universal and Sony's interpretation merely because the wording looks uncomfortable for Suno. The upload clause may be useful evidence about what the company anticipated and protected against, while willfulness still depends on the full record and the legal treatment of the underlying copying. The contract exposes a concrete difference between the permissions Suno demands from users and the permissions the labels say Suno never sought for itself.
