Technology & Science
Munich Court Orders OpenAI to Pay Damages for Unlicensed Use of German Song Lyrics
On 11 Nov 2025, the Munich Regional Court ruled that OpenAI’s ChatGPT infringed German copyright by training on and reproducing nine popular German song lyrics, ordering damages and barring use without a license.
Focusing Facts
- GEMA’s November 2024 suit covered nine songs and represented roughly 100,000 German composers, songwriters and publishers.
- Presiding Judge Elke Schwager required OpenAI to disclose profits tied to the lyrics and left OpenAI the option to appeal.
- This is the first substantive European court judgment holding a generative-AI developer liable for training-data copyright infringement.
Context
Europe has clashed with disruptive tech before: in 2001 the EU forced Napster-like service AudioGalaxy to shut down for unlicensed music sharing, and in 2018 GDPR reshaped global data practices. This ruling fits that lineage of the continent asserting authors’ rights over Silicon Valley scale. Long-term, it signals a shift from the early-internet norm of ‘scrape now, apologize later’ toward a licensed-data economy—much like the transition the film industry made after the 1948 U.S. Paramount decree compelled studios to separate production and exhibition. Whether AI companies strike blanket licensing deals (akin to Spotify’s 2009 pivot after Swedish court rulings) or retreat behind fair-use defenses will shape how creativity is monetized for decades. On a 100-year horizon the decision matters less for the specific damages than for testing the principle that statistical learning can still constitute “reproduction”—a legal definition that could either rein in or legitimize autonomous content engines that may dominate knowledge production through the 21st century.
Perspectives
Global wire and business outlets
e.g., Reuters, Economic Times, Yahoo! Finance — They report the Munich verdict as an important European precedent that bars OpenAI from using song lyrics without licences and may reshape AI copyright regulation. Their ostensibly just-the-facts style still foregrounds the court’s reasoning and damages while giving comparatively brief space to OpenAI’s technical defence, subtly reinforcing the litigation narrative.
Music-rights advocacy and industry press
e.g., Digital Music News, topnews.in — They celebrate the ruling as a “landmark” win proving AI firms must compensate songwriters and protecting the livelihoods of creators across Europe. Closely aligned with collecting societies and creators, they highlight GEMA’s demands and talk of precedent while downplaying the decision’s limited scope and potential appeals.
Tech-centric consumer media
e.g., CNET — They frame copyright disputes like GEMA v. OpenAI within a broader, unresolved debate over fair use and warn that restrictive rulings could slow AI innovation that companies argue is in the public interest. Relying on tech-industry access and readership, they echo Silicon Valley arguments about transformative use and national security, giving less emphasis to creators’ economic rights.