Musicians have always borrowed from one another. Many would even argue that influence is part of the creative process. But what happens when generative AI can study a musician’s body of work, isolate the characteristics that make it recognizable, and generate new material designed to confuse an audience?
That question sits at the center of a new proposed class action filed in federal court in Massachusetts against AI music platform Suno. Musicians Jason Isbell, David Lowery, Guy Forsyth and Eduardo Calle allege that the platform can generate music associated with specific artists’ identities, even though Suno says it blocks prompts containing artists’ names. According to the complaint, entering Isbell’s name produced an Americana song featuring what the plaintiffs described as his characteristic vocal and musical qualities.
The case is unusual because it does not depend primarily on whether Suno copied a particular song. Instead, the musicians argue that the platform commercially exploits their names, likenesses and recognizable musical identities. The complaint seeks to recover the value of those identities and prevent their continued unauthorized use. Suno has said the claims are without merit and maintains that its platform is intended to help users create original music, not trade on an artist’s name. Reuters reported on the filing in September 2026.
The case raises an important question for creators and businesses well beyond the music industry: can a person’s creative style become part of their commercially valuable identity, even when copyright law does not protect style itself?
Style is not a work, but it can still create value
Copyright law protects original expression fixed in a particular work. It can protect a song, photograph, illustration, film, book or other qualifying creative output. It generally does not give an artist exclusive ownership over a broad style, genre, technique or creative mood.
That limitation serves an important cultural purpose. No musician should own an entire genre. No painter should be able to prevent every future artist from using a particular technique. Creative progress depends on people learning from what came before them.
AI complicates that distinction because it can imitate at a scale and level of precision that ordinary influence cannot.
A human musician may be inspired by Jason Isbell’s storytelling. An AI platform may be able to process an enormous collection of music, associate Isbell’s name with recurring vocal, lyrical and instrumental characteristics, and generate a new song intended to trigger the same recognition.
The result may not reproduce enough protected material from any one recording to support a traditional copyright claim. However, it may still derive its commercial value from making a listener think, “That sounds like Jason Isbell.”
That recognition is the asset.
The plaintiffs in the Suno case refer to a musician’s “musical identity,” which may include voice, phrasing, instrumentation, genre associations and other identifying characteristics. Their theory asks courts to consider the difference between learning from a creative tradition and using technology to commercially reconstruct a particular person.
This is not identity theft in the traditional criminal sense. It is a question of whether a platform can appropriate the market value attached to a person’s identity while avoiding the specific elements protected by copyright law.
The audience does not separate style from identity
Consumers do not experience artists as collections of individually protected assets. They experience the complete impression.
A listener recognizes an artist through the interaction of voice, cadence, production, subject matter, phrasing and emotional tone. A film audience may recognize a director through color, composition, pacing and recurring themes. A fashion consumer may identify a designer through silhouette, styling, materials and presentation.
Each characteristic may be difficult to own in isolation. Together, they can become commercially powerful.
We saw this tension emerge in 2023 when the AI-generated song “Heart on My Sleeve” appeared to feature the voices of Drake and The Weeknd. The recording became culturally significant precisely because listeners believed they recognized the artists. Its value did not come from an unknown synthetic vocalist performing an unknown song. It came from the experience of hearing something that felt like new Drake and The Weeknd music without either artist participating.
The same issue now extends into endorsements and advertising. A recent Suno advertisement featuring Mary J. Blige was removed after the company said it had dealt with someone falsely claiming to represent her. The campaign reportedly presented Blige reacting to an AI-generated R&B song that listeners associated with her recognizable sound. The confusion surrounding the advertisement demonstrated how quickly an imitation can imply approval, participation or affiliation, even when the underlying reality is very different.
Taylor Swift’s recent trademark applications in the US involving recordings of her saying “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift” and “Hey, it’s Taylor” reflect another side of the same conversation. Her team appears to recognize that voice, movement and other nontraditional identifiers can carry independent commercial value.
These examples are not legally identical, but they reveal a shared market reality: identity is no longer limited to a name, photograph or signature. In the AI era, identity can include anything that causes an audience to recognize and trust the source.
Publicity rights may become increasingly important
The Suno plaintiffs are relying on rights of publicity, which generally protect individuals against unauthorized commercial uses of their name, image, likeness and other identifying characteristics.
Unlike copyright, publicity rights are governed primarily by state law and vary considerably across jurisdictions. Questions involving voice, persona, imitation and expressive works can also implicate significant First Amendment considerations. The outcome of the Suno case is therefore far from certain.
The larger development is still important.
A performer may sell or assign rights in a particular recording while retaining rights associated with their personal identity. The owner of a master recording and the person whose recognizable voice appears on it may possess different interests. AI systems make that distinction more commercially significant because a platform may not need to reproduce the original recording to create something that sounds convincingly connected to the performer.
The U.S. Copyright Office has also recognized that existing laws may not be sufficient to address highly realistic AI-generated replicas. Its report on digital replicas recommended federal protection against unauthorized reproductions of an individual’s voice or appearance, reflecting broader concern that fragmented state laws may not adequately address the scale of the technology.
For companies operating in this space, this means an analysis cannot end with the question, “Who owns the copyright?”
The more complete questions are: Whose identity is being used? What causes the public to recognize that person? What permissions were granted? Does the agreement contemplate AI-generated uses? Who controls the right to authorize an imitation?
Creative identity should be treated as a licensable asset
Businesses and creators should begin identifying what Minx Law considers “recognition assets.” These are the characteristics that allow an audience to recognize the source of a product, performance or message, even when the formal name or logo is missing.
For a musician, recognition assets may include voice, vocal delivery, signature phrases, performance mannerisms and a distinctive visual presentation. For a founder, they may include a recognizable speaking style, image or recurring video format. For an actor or athlete, they may include gestures, movements, expressions and other elements of persona. A consumer company may develop similar value around a mascot, spokesperson, sound, product demonstration or branded customer experience.
Identifying these assets does not mean a company can automatically claim exclusive ownership over all of them. The appropriate protection may involve a combination of trademark rights, copyright, publicity rights, contractual restrictions and clear licensing terms.
