12 October 2026
Generative AI has made it increasingly easy to create music that sounds like a particular artist.
But what happens if the output captures an artist’s recognisable style without copying a particular song?
That question sits in an uncomfortable gap between copyright, trade marks and the law protecting reputation and commercial identity.
The Suno lawsuit
In September 2026, musicians including Jason Isbell filed a proposed class action against AI music platform Suno in the United States.
The musicians allege that Suno used their identities without permission and allowed users to generate songs in their recognisable styles. Suno disputes the allegations and says its platform is designed to create original music, with safeguards intended to prevent misuse.
The case is notable because it is not primarily framed as a copyright claim. Instead, it focuses on the musicians’ names, images, likenesses and identity rights.
That distinction matters.
Copyright does not usually protect a style
Copyright can protect a particular song, recording, lyric or performance. It does not generally give someone ownership of a musical genre, technique or style.
An artist may therefore find it difficult to rely on copyright if an AI-generated track feels unmistakably like their work but does not reproduce a substantial part of a particular protected work.
This does not necessarily mean the use is lawful. Different rights may be engaged if the artist’s name, voice, image or reputation is used to generate, describe or promote the output.
The US proceeding relies heavily on rights of publicity. Those rights can allow a person to control certain commercial uses of their identity, although the rules vary between US states.
Australia does not have an equivalent general right of publicity. Australian creators may instead need to rely on a combination of legal protections.
What protections may be available in Australia?
The available rights will depend on what was used and how the AI-generated material is presented.
They may include:
-
Trade marks: An artist’s professional name, logo, signature phrase or other brand element may be registrable for relevant entertainment, merchandise or promotional services.
-
Passing off: This may help where the use falsely suggests a commercial connection, licence or endorsement and damages the creator’s goodwill.
-
Australian Consumer Law: Misleading representations about sponsorship, approval or affiliation may contravene the Australian Consumer Law.
-
Copyright: Copyright may still apply if an AI output reproduces a substantial part of a protected song, recording, photograph, artwork or other work.
-
Contracts and platform rules: Recording, endorsement, publishing and platform agreements may control how a creator’s content, voice or identity can be used.
None of these rights perfectly protects an artistic style by itself. The strongest response will often involve several rights working together.
A creator’s identity is a commercial asset
Names, voices, visual presentation and reputations can be highly valuable. For many musicians, performers, influencers and online creators, they are central to the business.
That value should be protected deliberately rather than left to assumptions about copyright.
Creators should consider:
-
registering important names, logos and other brand identifiers as trade marks;
-
documenting where and how those identifiers are used commercially;
-
addressing AI training, synthetic media and digital replicas in licences and endorsement agreements;
-
monitoring AI platforms, advertisements and social media for misleading uses;
-
keeping evidence of suspect outputs, including prompts, screenshots, URLs and dates; and
-
checking whether platform complaint procedures offer a quick way to remove misleading content.
Businesses commissioning AI-generated music or advertising should also be cautious. A track described as being “in the style of” a known performer may create legal and reputational risk even if it does not copy a particular song.
The broader lesson
The Suno case has not been decided. It nevertheless highlights a growing practical problem: AI can imitate the commercial identity of a creator without neatly reproducing one protected work.
Copyright remains important, but it may only answer part of the question.
For creators, the better strategy is to treat identity, reputation and brand recognition as valuable intangible assets—and protect them through trade marks, contracts, evidence and active monitoring before a dispute arises.
