Landmark German Court Rules ChatGPT Violated Copyright Law with Song Lyrics

A Munich court has delivered a significant blow to OpenAI, ruling that its popular chatbot, ChatGPT, infringed upon German copyright laws. The decision, announced on Tuesday, November 11, 2025, found that OpenAI utilized copyrighted song lyrics to train its advanced language models without proper authorization.

ctvnews.ca reported, This landmark European judgment mandates OpenAI to pay undisclosed damages for its unauthorized use of protected material. The ruling sets a crucial precedent for both the creative industries and the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence development across the continent.

The case was brought forward by GEMA, Germany's prominent music rights society, which represents approximately 100,000 composers, lyricists, and music publishers. GEMA accused OpenAI of "harvesting" protected lyrics from popular artists to "learn" from them, a claim the court ultimately upheld.

theguardian.com noted, Specifically, the Munich Regional Court sided with GEMA, concluding that both the "memorization" of copyrighted material during the training process and the subsequent reproduction of those lyrics in ChatGPT's outputs constituted copyright infringement. This dual finding directly challenges OpenAI's defense regarding its training methodologies.

OpenAI had argued that its language models absorb entire training sets rather than storing specific songs, and that users, not the company, should be liable for generated outputs. However, the court explicitly rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the company itself is responsible for the outputs.

siliconrepublic.com reported, The lawsuit, initially filed by GEMA in November 2024, focused on the unauthorized use of lyrics from nine well-known German hit songs, including Herbert Grönemeyer's "Männer" and Helene Fischer's "Atemlos Durch die Nacht." This case was widely seen as a pivotal European test case against AI scraping of creative content.

While OpenAI has expressed disagreement with the ruling and is considering an appeal, GEMA has hailed the decision as a "milestone victory for copyright law" and a clear signal to the global tech industry. The organization hopes this verdict will encourage AI companies to negotiate fair licensing deals with rights holders.

• ctvnews.ca noted, Background Context and Historical Perspective: The proliferation of generative AI models like ChatGPT has ignited a global debate over intellectual property rights, particularly concerning the vast datasets used for their training. Many AI companies have been vague about their data sources, leading to numerous lawsuits worldwide from authors, artists, and media groups alleging unauthorized use of their copyrighted works. This German ruling is a significant European entry into this complex legal landscape.

• Key Stakeholders and Their Positions: GEMA, representing over 100,000 music creators, initiated the lawsuit to ensure fair compensation for artists whose work is used to train AI. OpenAI, on the other hand, contended that its models learn patterns rather than storing specific content and that its training falls under permissible use. The court’s decision directly refutes OpenAI's arguments, asserting that both the internal memorization and external reproduction of lyrics infringe copyright.

• theguardian.com reported, Economic and Social Implications: This ruling could have substantial economic implications, potentially forcing AI developers to secure licenses for copyrighted material used in training, thereby increasing operational costs. Conversely, it offers a new revenue stream for creative industries, ensuring artists are compensated for their contributions to AI development. Socially, it reinforces the value of human creativity in an age of advancing automation.

• Related Developments and Similar Cases: This German decision follows a growing trend of copyright challenges against AI companies globally. In the U.S., over 30 lawsuits are active, including cases from The New York Times against OpenAI and various authors and artists against AI image generators. The EU AI Act, which came into force in August 2024, also includes provisions requiring general-purpose AI model providers to comply with copyright law and publish summaries of training content.

• siliconrepublic.com noted, Expert Opinions and Analysis: Legal experts view this ruling as a critical step in establishing legal certainty for creators in the AI era. Dr. Tobias Holzmüller, GEMA's CEO, stated that the internet is "not some kind of self-service buffet" for AI companies, emphasizing that creative achievements are not free templates. The Berlin law firm Raue, representing GEMA, highlighted the ruling's potential to impact far beyond Germany as a precedent for creative works protection.

• Potential Future Developments and Next Steps: OpenAI has indicated it will weigh an appeal, which could potentially lead to the case being referred to the European Court of Justice for a fundamental decision at a European level. Such a referral would aim to clarify complex legal questions, including whether AI model training falls under text and data mining exceptions or requires a license. This ongoing legal battle is expected to shape future AI training practices and licensing models.

• ctvnews.ca reported, Impact on Different Groups: For AI developers, the ruling signals a need to re-evaluate data acquisition strategies and potentially invest in licensing frameworks. Artists and rights holders are empowered by this decision, which validates their claims for compensation and control over their intellectual property. Consumers might see changes in how AI-generated content is produced and potentially priced, reflecting the costs of licensed training data.

• Regulatory and Legal Context: The Munich court's decision underscores the divergence in legal interpretations of AI and intellectual property across Europe, contrasting with some other national rulings. German copyright law, particularly sections concerning reproduction rights and text and data mining exceptions, was central to the court's findings. The ruling emphasizes that the training of generative AI models does not automatically fall under existing text and data mining exceptions.