Generative AI in the Music Industry: Xania Monet, Suno, and Questions of Legality

Introduction

Generative artificial intelligence has rapidly become a central topic of discussion across numerous sectors, and the music industry is no exception. Its integration into digital audio workstations, the rise of AI-generated music and even entire AI-created artists, illustrates its expanding role in contemporary music practice. Reactions in the industry are divided–some emphasize AI’s potential to enhance accessibility, democratize music creation, and support experimentation, while others raise concerns regarding originality, authorship, legal and ethical implications, and potential diminishment of human creative agency.  This article examines the evolving influence of generative AI within the music community, including developments such as Xania Monet and AI music platforms such as Suno AI.

An Understanding of Suno, Udio, and other AI production software

Generative AI is the use of artificial intelligence not only to assist human processes but also to create independent outputs.^[1] LLMs, or large language models, are a category of Generative AI trained by ingesting large amounts of corpus data to enable prediction, pattern recognition, and content production.^[2]

Through LLMs and other models, artificial intelligence can be trained to create text, images, video, and even sound and music.^[3] GenAI entered popular use with OpenAI’s ChatGPT, an AI chatbot, along with DALL·E, an image generator. OpenAI is one of the pioneers of GenAI, along with Meta AI, Google’s Gemini, and other major research laboratories. ^[4]

One of the most popular applications of GenAI in music is Suno AI. Suno was co-founded by Mikey Shulman, who, in addition to being a musician, holds a Ph.D. in Physics from Harvard University. While working at Kensho, a company that provides AI-powered solutions for businesses, Shulman often transcribed text through AI, specifically for earnings calls. This drew him to the idea of audio and sound transcription through AI.^[5] Shulman collaborated with fellow employees at Kensho, including musicians and AI enthusiasts, to create Suno AI with the intent of bringing music creation to a new level of accessibility. Shulman observed that the balance between music listeners and music makers is highly lopsided. In an effort to democratize music, he hopes to enable consumers to become creators.^[6] In a podcast interview with 20VC, he stated, “the majority of people don’t enjoy the time they spend making music…It takes a lot of time, it takes a lot of practice.” Suno AI is an effort to give “everybody the joys of creating music.”^[7] 

Shulman’s idea for Suno required a music-based LLM to predict sound rather than text. Given that applications like ChatGPT obtain data from large amounts of text, including copyrighted material such as published books or other literary works, it has been theorized that Suno and other music AI applications have drawn from similar copyrighted sources of music. When Suno was released in December 2023, the founders did not declare the materials used, causing many legal issues down the line.^[8] 

Suno AI functions by allowing the user to input a singular idea to prompt the software to produce a song.^[9] If the user wishes, they can specify more parameters, such as adding lyrics, selecting a genre or style, and even uploading existing audio.^[10] In The Use of AI in Creating Music Compositions: A Case Study on Suno Application, a research paper examining the advantages and disadvantages of AI-generated music, the author breaks down the process of music composition into nine steps: finding inspiration, experimenting with sound, choosing structure, creating rhythm, and developing harmony. This process is often lengthy, and the author details the decisions and thoughts that go into each step—drawing inspiration from memories or stories, creating iconic melodies, and choosing instrumentation that reflects the song’s character, among many other considerations.

Suno AI can shortcut this process into three steps: determining the style of music, creating a title, and clicking the “create” button.^[11] Similar companies, such as Udio, have emerged in competition with Suno, in what Rolling Stone calls an “AI Music Arms Race”.^[12] Udio is similar to Suno in its music creation process; however, Udio is often praised for having clearer and higher-quality results than its competitor.^[13] Though relatively new, Udio has made a powerful impact on the industry. It was created by four former Google DeepMind researchers, and is backed by investors such as Will.I.Am, Instagram co-founder Mike Kreiger, and VP of research at Google DeepMind.^[14] 

Applications such as Suno and Udio have received mixed reactions. Renowned artist Timbaland, who has collaborated with many major artists including Justin Timberlake, Jay-Z, and Kanye West, has praised AI, calling it a new wave of innovation. An avid user of Suno, he has dubbed the application “Baby Timbo” and even signed on as a creative consultant with Suno.^[15] Furthermore, Timbaland launched his own AI-focused entertainment company, Stage Zero, hoping to normalize A-Pop, or artificial pop. ^[16] 

Some are less enthusiastic about AI than Timbaland. Concerns have risen about the competition between AI-generated music and human-created music, given that AI can generate significantly more music compared to a single artist, and lacks the originality and creative process required of humans.^[17] Billie Eilish, Nicki Minaj, Stevie Wonder, and over 200 other musicians signed a letter written by the Artists Rights Alliance in 2024 demanding that tech companies “stop devaluing music.” The letter states an understanding that “AI has enormous potential to advance human creativity,” but that if used irresponsibly, it has the effect of “replacing the work of human artists” and “diluting the royalty pools that are paid out to artists.”^[18] Others are concerned about theft—over 1000 artists came together to release the album ‘Is This What We Want’ in protest of the UK government proposing to change copyright law to allow artificial intelligence companies to use copyrighted data.^[19] 

Copyright Infringement Issues – Lawsuits

This concern of copyright infringement has not gone unheard. There has been much litigation surrounding LLM datasets and copyrighted materials, including lawsuits against many significant AI companies, including OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Nvidia, Suno, Udio, and more.^[20] The first music industry lawsuit was in 2023—Concord Music Group V. Anthropic. This lawsuit accused Anthropic of knowingly training its text generator, Claude, on copyrighted lyrics and purposefully removing copyright management information.^[21] In 2024, two additional copyright infringement lawsuits were filed on behalf of three major labels—Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, and Warner Records —concerning the use of copyrighted music in training LLMs. The complaints were filed against Suno AI and Udio AI, respectively, arguing that nothing “exempts AI technology from copyright law.”  The complaint states “when those who develop such [services] steal copyrighted sound recordings, the [services’] synthetic musical outputs could saturate the market with machine-generated content that will directly compete with, cheapen, and ultimately drown out the genuine sound recordings on which the [services were] built.”^[22] The complaints emphasize the concern that music created by Generative AI will mimic the music it learns from, potentially diluting the music industry. These lawsuits raise another question: how exactly did Suno and Udio acquire countless amounts of copyrighted recordings?

Allegedly, the answer is mass piracy. In September of 2025, Anthropic paid $1.5 billion to settle a lawsuit brought by a group of authors accusing the company of copyright infringement. The judge’s ruling settled that, if the material was obtained legally, it was deemed fair use for training LLMs. However, the lawsuit found that the material Anthropic used was indeed pirated.^[23] In light of this previous ruling, the three major labels accused Suno and Udio of “stream ripping.” Stream ripping is the act of downloading digital files from streaming services, evading the measures used to prevent streaming downloads. Although Anthropic was allowed “fair use” of legally obtained copyrighted material, the lawsuit against Suno and Udio argues that, whether the music was stream-ripped or not, training AI is not a case of fair use.

Fair use includes criticism, commentary, news reporting, research, teaching, or scholarship.^[24] Given that Suno does not serve any of these purposes, the lawsuit states, “Suno’s motive is brazenly commercial and threatens to displace the genuine human artistry that is at the heart of copyright protection.”^[25] The co-founders and investors of Suno AI have often been evasive and dismissive of accusations before the lawsuit, and seem eager to strike a deal to end the proceedings. In October of 2025, it was announced that Universal, Sony, and Warner might be pivoting from the lawsuit to seek licensing deals with Suno and Udio instead. Still seeking compensation for past use, the deal would allow AI companies to use the material while allowing labels to track the usage and collect revenue accordingly. However, there is still the concern of control. With labels making the decisions, there is no consent from songwriters or performers, creating fear that revenue will be distributed unfairly. This move echoes the stand that labels took with the rise of streaming; however, with streaming deals, it was easy to track music usage. In this scenario, attributing usage is much more complex.^[26] In addition, the deals disregard the songwriter’s rights. Many argue that throughout this deal between GenAI music companies and record labels, all creative parties should be involved, and that there should be an inclusion for each artist to opt in or out.^[27] 

Xania Monet and the Rise of Other AI Ghost Artists

With the rise of technology such as Suno AI, a new wave of AI-generated artists has emerged. These artists include Xania Monet, TaTa, and The Velvet Sundown, amongst many others. Xania Monet recently made headlines as the first AI artist to sign a multi-million dollar record deal. A persona created by Talisha Jones, a 31-year-old poet who used Suno to bring her lyrical ideas to life, Xania Monet is an R&B singer who has caught the eye of many. She has garnered over a million monthly listeners and 17 million streams total. Her most-played song, “How Was I Supposed to Know,” sits at 4.5 million streams alone and was even ranked in the Top 10 of Billboard’s R&B digital songs sales. To many’s surprise, after a bidding war between labels, Monet was signed to a $3 million record deal at Hallwood Media. Hallwood Media is a label owned by Neil Jacobson, a former Interscope executive. It’s estimated that Monet’s music, or Jones’s creation, has made over $50,000 in two months on Spotify. Given that Spotify hosts AI-generated music without requiring artists to disclose the use of AI to listeners, and splits royalties the same as any other music, there are concerns about the fairness of royalty distribution.^[28] As of September 2025, Spotify cracked down on what it calls “spammy tracks” in an effort to ensure that royalties are distributed to real artists. However, this did not include AI-generated personas or music such as Xania Monet, but rather instances like mass uploads and duplicates. Head of music at Spotify, Charlie Hellman, stated, “We are here to stop the bad actors who are gaming the system, and we can only benefit from [the] good side of AI if we aggressively protect against the downside.”^[29] 

There have been other AI personalities that have taken the internet by storm. Most notably, the folk/rock band The Velvet Sundown caused significant controversy in the summer of 2025. The rise of the Velvet Sundown brought to light issues surrounding AI-generated music and the music journalism community. In June 2025, the group released two albums on streaming platforms, quickly garnering streams and popularity. Their sound was often compared to Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young. In their Spotify description, the band was said to be comprised of vocalist Gabe Farrow, guitarist Lennie West, bassist-synth artist Milo Rains, and percussionist Orion “Rio” Del Mar.^[30] As The Velvet Sundown began posting on Instagram with AI-generated images of the band, followers started to suspect that the band’s music was also generated by AI. In due time, the public realized that The Velvet Sundown was indeed not real, and the story took a strange and confusing turn. A so-called spokesperson for the band, Andrew Frelon, came forward through X. The X account denied any AI involvement in the music, writing, “This is not a joke. This is our music, written in long, sweaty nights in a cramped bungalow in California with real instruments.” However, when interviewed by Rolling Stone, Frelon seemed to reluctantly admit that The Velvet Sundown did in fact use Suno to create the music in an effort to garner attention for an “art hoax.”^[31] 

In an interesting turn of events, on July 2nd, the Instagram account run by The Velvet Sundown released a statement that they were not affiliated with Andrew Frelon nor did he represent them, effectively revealing that Frelon managed to fool The Rolling Stone.^[32] In an article published on Medium, ‘Andrew Frelon’ revealed his reasoning for falsifying his identity, stating his background in AI music as his motive, in addition to a willingness to expose a fault in the journalism industry. He states, “in the heat of the moment, as journalists are trying to race to be the first to publish, many will disregard best practices around fact-checking and verification”, and even went on to name every journalist who DM’d his fake account on X, including writers from The Washington Post, NBC Universal, Variety, and Billboard.^[33] On July 5th, after a month of speculation and scams, the band The Velvet Sundown came clean in an Instagram post, stating –

“The Velvet Sundown is a synthetic music project guided by human creative direction, and composed, voiced, and visualized with the support of artificial intelligence.

This isn’t a trick – it’s a mirror. An ongoing artistic provocation designed to challenge the boundaries of authorship, identity, and the future of music itself in the age of AI.

All characters, stories, music, voices and lyrics are original creations generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools employed as creative instruments. Any resemblance to actual places, events or persons – living or deceased – is purely coincidental and unintentional.

Not quite human. Not quite machine.

The Velvet Sundown lives somewhere in between.” ^[34]

Though seemingly forced to reveal their identity due to Andrew Frelon’s impersonation, the AI-generated band continued to admit and justify their message openly. Their website states a description of their music: “Velvet Sundown is a band. Probably. Born from fake nostalgia, code, and late-stage capitalism, we make emotionally distant psych-pop using tools we don’t fully understand. Our influences include heartbreak, vintage soft rock, and a corrupted folder labeled “feels.” We are not real in the traditional sense—but our melodies are. Our vibes? Immaculate. Our royalties? Minimal. We exist to confuse music journalists, comfort robots, and help Spotify executives sleep at night. Are we replacing human artists? No. (Yes.).” ^[35]

Their brand is defined by clever, self-aware quips, and their merchandise even reads “Sorry Real Musicians.” Though it seemed to engage in social commentary, the stunt’s satirical tone did not sway those who opposed the band’s existence. A writer for Euronews wrote, “Your aesthetically soulless ‘synthetic music project’ is a prime example of autocratic tech bros seeking to reduce human creation to algorithms designed to eradicate art… the stunt comes off as tone-deaf. Worse, morally shameless.”^[36] After the controversy, the buzz around the band dissipated. At one point, the band had 1.4 million monthly listeners. As of October 2025, the fast-paced music industry has left them with 200K monthly listeners, prompting many questions about the future.^[37] For those who are making an effort to introduce AI into the streaming space, Xania Monet and The Velvet Sundown serve as examples. Without touring capabilities and methods to engage audiences beyond media controversy, is it possible to succeed as an AI artist?

Reactions from the Industry: Consumers and Creatives

There has been a passionate, though divided, response to AI music initiatives from both creatives and consumers. As previously discussed, artists such as Timbaland and Will.I.Am have been supporters of GenAI, and have chosen to invest in and even generate their own companies within the industry. Others, such as Billie Eilish and Dua Lipa, have spoken out against AI involvement.^[38] In response to Xania Monet’s signing, R&B artist Kehlani posted to her story, “This is so beyond out of our control and nothing and no one on earth will be able to justify AI to me.”. On Xania Monet’s Instagram, which has garnered 136K followers, countless AI-generated videos promote her music. Viewers comment with mixed reactions, with many being positive and appreciative of the lyricism—“Everything you say is so real and raw! You are definitely something special that we all needed”, while others express confusion, stating, “I’m still not sure if you’re AI all around or a real person that’s using an AI image.”^[39]

Commenters on The Velvet Sundown’s social media primarily retorted with disappointment, stating, “Welcome to the death of creativity,” and “Nah. Hire real musicians.” There were some positive reactions, including “I know it’s AI, but it’s undeniably good music.”^[40] In an article titled “Nobody Cares if Music is Real Anymore,” published in The Atlantic, Author Ian Bogost described the music as “nothing—not good or bad, aesthetically or morally.” He cited the introduction of streaming as a turning point in the industry, noting that Napster, the iPod, and Spotify shifted music from an active listening experience to a passive one. He argues that The Velvet Sundown’s “perfectly average” contribution is just another extension of this passivity, like another Spotify AI-generated playlist, based on generic feelings and instrumentations. He goes on to reference what he calls flattening technologies: “Music used to define someone’s identity… The internet has fragmented and flattened subcultures.” Bogost argues that the AI generated music serves the same purpose as human-made music in today’s age, stating “mild sensibilities have currency because today’s music—whether created and curated by humans or machines—is so often used to make people feel nothing instead of something.”^[41] 

While Bogost chose to be indifferent when presented with AI-generated music, an article by a Cornell student takes the opposite position, urging listeners to care whether AI or a human created the work. Though acknowledging that likely only enjoyers of music and not passive listeners will care about the difference, the author argues that “it appears that the dawn of AI music has forced the responsibility on us, the receiving end, to pay attention to what we are receiving. Regardless of what stance you take, you, and only you, are in charge of what you consume.”^[42] 

The Future of AI in Music

It’s no secret that the future of the music industry is uncertain. Many believe AI is here to stay, and there’s much speculation about creativity and authenticity in the industry, along with legal concerns regarding copyright, royalty distribution, and other related issues.

Spotify’s treatment of both artists and consumers has been an established concern within the industry. Spotify refuses to label AI-generated content, stating “Spotify doesn’t police the tools artists use in their creative process.”^[43] Thus, more and more AI-generated content will likely be unknowingly streamed. There have been previous controversies regarding Spotify’s practice of filling playlists with lower royalty payouts to artists, replacing real artists in instrumental or “mood music” playlists with works from dozens of production companies. These companies offer “a subscription-based library of production music—the kind of stock material often used in the background of advertisements, TV programs, and assorted video content.” A report by Liz Pelly, published in Harper’s Magazine, exposes a program, Perfect Fit Content (PFC), launched in 2017 and still ongoing. In this program, Spotify created partnerships with these production companies to seed the mass-produced music within playlists to reduce total royalty payouts.^[44] There is a concern that the ghost artists involved, hired by said production companies to make music that is then sold to Spotify at negotiated royalty rates, could easily be replaced with AI artists, helping cut costs even further.^[45] 

Other streaming services, such as Deezer, have implemented AI recognition technology. Upon implementation, the platform found that 20% of work uploaded daily is AI-generated, but it only makes up for 1% of streams.^[46] This further exemplifies the example set by The Velvet Sundown, suggesting that mainstream AI music may not succeed in the long term. There is also the argument that it is not a streaming service’s obligation to disclose AI; rather, it is the consumers’ responsibility to go directly to the source. In a discussion with NPR, UC Berkeley professor Hany Farid outlines the nuances of transparency, stating, “The burden to disclose AI usage should ideally be on the shoulders of whoever uploads a song or image. But because tech companies rely on user-generated content to sell ads against—and because more content equals more ad money—there aren’t many incentives to enforce that disclosure from users or for the industry to self-police… the solution may come down to government regulation”.^[47] Given the dozens of ongoing lawsuits regarding AI and copyright infringement, it is unclear when an exact decision regarding transparency and fair use will be made.

As of October 2025, Suno and Udio are both nearing licensing deals with major record companies. Requiring AI companies to track the usage of music, payouts to labels would be based on a streaming model.^[48] While this may favor record labels, it still leaves concerns regarding artist compensation. A recent study by CISAC details the potential revenue losses and opportunities for artists if the regulatory landscape remains unchanged by 2028. It states that there would be two primary losses: “the loss of revenues due to the unauthorised use of their works by GenAI models,” as well as the “replacement of their traditional revenue streams due to the substitution effect of AI-generated outputs.” Moving forward, many call upon artists to continue to trust in storytelling and human creation—“artists are confronted with the reality of competition in an open marketplace. Like anyone facing such a challenge, musicians must elevate their work, make it unique, and build a compelling story around it.”^[49] Others urge artists to work with AI and approach it with curiosity. Chris Wares, Assistant Chair of the Music Business Department at Berklee College of Music, while moderating a panel at Berklee’s AI and Music Innovation Series, emphasized that musicians who use AI—as compared to non-musicians—set themselves apart because of taste and experience. Ben Camp, associate professor of Songwriting, explains the importance of using AI as a tool, not a replacement. He urges self-awareness – to still develop the skills that are lacking, but to use AI to speed up the process, stating “we need to be thoughtful about what we trade away, and what we build in its place.”^[50] 

Conclusion

The rapid rise of Generative AI has ushered in a new era in the music industry—often sparking controversy, yet also encouraging creatives, industry professionals, and consumers alike to adapt while remaining curious. Companies like Suno and Udio continue to change the creative playing field, allowing new artists such as Xania Monet and The Velvet Sundown to spark conversations about originality and innovation. Given the numerous lawsuits, AI companies and labels are seeking a solution to copyright infringement issues, and possible deals between the two may help resolve the disputes. In an ever-changing technological and creative landscape, Berklee Liberal Arts professor Lori Lindsay urges users to prioritize humanity and personal experience, stating, “An AI simulation is never going to have what everyone in this room has, which is experiences over time in a body…This is what is precious. This is what makes art, this is what makes music. This is what makes us enjoy music, why we have to have music.”^[51] 

Comments