Muscles from Munich? How German Courts Might Stop US Companies from Violating Copyright through AI Training

Yesterday, the Regional Courtroom of Munich (Landgericht München I) held a extremely attention-grabbing oral listening to in a dispute introduced by GEMA, a German amassing society representing composers, and Suno, a generative music AI firm based mostly in Cambridge, MA. The listening to was noteworthy, first, as a result of it gave the general public a possibility to hearken to quite a few worldwide hits, from Alphaville’s Ceaselessly Younger to Lou Bega’s Mambo No. 5 (and their alleged copies created by Suno) in a courtroom; and secondly, as a result of the dispute raises some attention-grabbing questions of personal worldwide regulation.

After GEMA had already scored a well-known victory in opposition to OpenAI in November 2025, when the identical chamber of the Munich Courtroom had held that the corporate had been violating the copyrights of a number of artists and composers by reproducing their track texts, the current proceedings differed not simply in scope (specializing in the musical association fairly than texts) but in addition in its worldwide dimension. For the primary time, the claimant explicitly included the usage of the protected works for coaching that had occurred (in response to each events) solely within the US.

So far as these claims are involved, the principle impediment to beat for the claimant is the German courtroom’s jurisdiction. As Germany has no (codified) regulation on worldwide jurisdiction over non-EU defendants, worldwide jurisdiction is established by extending the foundations on native jurisdiction (venue) to worldwide jurisdiction (so-called ‘double funtionality’; see Lutzi/Wilke, in Lutzi/Piovesani/Zgrabljic Rotar (eds), Jurisdiction over Non-EU Defendants (Hart 2024), 111 et seq). Within the current case, this seems to offer a possibility for the claimant to depend on a little-known norm of the German Verwertungsgesellschaftsgesetz (VGG; personal translation and emphasis):

§ 131 Unique Jurisdiction

(1) For authorized disputes regarding claims by a amassing society for infringement of a proper of use or proper of consent administered by it, the courtroom of the district during which the infringing act was dedicated or during which the infringer has their normal place of jurisdiction shall have unique jurisdiction. (…)

(2) If, pursuant to paragraph 1, sentence 1, completely different courts have jurisdiction for a number of authorized disputes in opposition to the identical infringer, the amassing society might carry all claims earlier than any one in all these courts.

Whereas the supply is clearly aimed toward allocating native jurisdiction inside Germany, nothing in its wording appears to exclude a global understanding, just like different norms on native jurisdiction. Whereas this could create a clearly exorbitant discussion board actoris for German amassing societies in circumstances falling beneath paragraph 2, this could be justified by the peculiar nature of amassing societies, that are closely regulated in German regulation and are required, for example, to enter into licensing agreements beneath ‘applicable’ situations (§ 34 VGG). Certainly, the Munich courtroom appeared fairly amenable to the proposition of making use of § 131 VGG internationally.

Within the current case, this could elevate additional attention-grabbing questions.

For as soon as, does paragraph 1, in response to which the courts of the place of infringing and the courts of the defendant’s seat are competent, result in ‘completely different courts’ being competent within the sense of paragraph 2? Historically, the supply was supposed to resolve the issue of touring showmen performing committing comparable infringements in quite a few locations. So far as the coaching of AI is anxious, there may solely be a single place of infringement, although. Then once more, paragraph 2 solely requires a number of competent courts for proceedings ‘in opposition to the identical infringer’, which ought to permit different infringements, such because the streaming of allegedly copyright-violating output in Germany to be taken under consideration.

Assuming that the courtroom wouldn’t contemplate this enough to set off the discussion board actoris of paragraph 2, it could must reply one other query, specifically if paragraph 1 as a rule of unique jurisdiction would additionally stop the claimant from (subsidiarily) counting on § 23 of the Civil Process Code (ZPO), which creates jurisdiction on the location of the defendant’s property. In different contexts, authors have argued that provisions of unique native jurisdiction shouldn’t be understood as provisions of unique worldwide jurisdiction in order to not render the popularity and enforcement of selections from different fora not possible.

If the Munich courtroom accepted its worldwide jurisdiction on both of these bases, the relevant regulation would, in fact, nonetheless be US copyright regulation (together with its comparatively far-reaching exceptions for ‘honest use’, which the defendants argue ought to apply right here) pursuant to Article 8 Rome II. Thus, if the choice – which has been scheduled for 12 June – features a optimistic choice on worldwide jurisdiction concerning the US-based coaching, it won’t but embody a call on the substance on this regard, however might as an alternative embody an order for knowledgeable proof on overseas regulation (§ 293 ZPO).

The claimants would understandably nonetheless contemplate this as a win, although, as it could present a foundation for future claims by German amassing societies in opposition to AI corporations. On this sense, it could match neatly into what Linda Kuschel and Darius Rostam have described, in response to the earlier choice in opposition to OpenAI, as ‘the present standard narrative of a tightly regulating EU that protects rightsholders and a US that favors AI-friendly market options.’ Whereas the Munich judges mentioned fairly little about their very own most popular interpretation of the regulation at yesterday’s listening to, particularly with regard to worldwide jurisdiction, additionally they made no effort to dispel this narrative.