Top Music Attorney Miss Krystle, Weighs Legal Action for Independent Artists in Wake of AI Copyright Report

A leading music attorney says the U.S. Copyright Office’s recent report on artificial intelligence and copyright law could become a game changer in the ongoing legal battles between artists and AI developers—and she’s preparing for action.

In a detailed breakdown of the Copyright Office’s preliminary report on generative AI training, Miss Krystal, a prominent music lawyer and advocate for creatives, said the findings have left her “so persuaded” that she’s now exploring whether to file a lawsuit on behalf of independent artists. “What about all the independent artists who had their music trained on without permission?” she said. “They’re not going to get paid.”

The report, the third in a series addressing AI and copyright, analyzes whether AI companies can freely train on copyrighted works without authorization or liability. According to Miss Krystle, the Copyright Office’s findings strongly support the argument that AI companies—like Suno and Udio, who are already facing lawsuits from major record labels—may have infringed on creators' rights. “They basically say: if you downloaded the content, if you memorized the content, if you made a copy—that’s copyright infringement,” she said.

Independent Artists Left Behind

While the lawsuits filed by Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony Music target the biggest AI players, Miss Krystle emphasized that independent artists are being left out of the conversation—and any potential settlements. “The major record labels are going to get paid,” she said. “But who’s representing the independent artists?”

She said the situation is especially urgent given the Copyright Office’s clear stance on key legal issues, such as the amount of material used and the purpose of that use. “They basically laid out that wholesale copying—like downloading whole works for training—generally weighs against fair use,” she said. “And that’s exactly what these AI companies are doing.”

The Four Factors of Fair Use

The attorney broke down the legal standard for fair use, which includes four factors: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect on the market. According to the report, the Copyright Office places the most weight on the first and fourth factors—whether the use is commercial and whether it harms the market.

For music, those two points are especially critical. “Music is inherently creative and expressive, so it’s more protected,” she said. “And the effect on the market is clear—we’re already seeing AI-generated music flooding platforms and diluting opportunities for discovery.”

She added, “When you use a song to train AI and then that AI spits out something similar, that’s a competing product. That’s market harm.”

The Suno/Udio Lawsuits and Beyond

Suno and Udio, two AI startups that generate songs based on text prompts, are already being sued by major labels for allegedly using copyrighted recordings in their training data. But Miss Krystal said the implications go further, especially in light of the Copyright Office’s conclusion that acts of infringement do occur during training—even if companies later claim fair use as a defense.

“The Copyright Office spells it out: to train an AI, you need to make a copy of the original work. That’s infringement,” she said. “Whether or not you can get away with it depends on fair use. But they’re saying most of these uses don’t qualify.”

She pointed to the example of generative music platforms that can recreate entire songs or produce material nearly indistinguishable from existing work. “If an AI can spit out something that sounds like your song, it’s because it learned it from your song,” she said.

Filters, Fair Use, and Fallout

The report also touched on AI companies’ use of content filters and whether those precautions change the fair use analysis. According to Miss Krystle, the answer is: not really.

“These companies love to say, ‘Well, we have filters now,’” she said. “But if those filters weren’t there when you were training on copyrighted material, you already violated the law.”

She noted that even when companies claim they’re not producing expressive content, that argument often falls flat in the context of music. “These are songs,” she said. “They’re inherently expressive. This isn’t statistical data. It’s art.”

Political Shake-Up and Policy Concerns

The release of the report also coincided with a major shakeup: the firing of Shira Perlmutter, the then-director of the Copyright Office. While no official reason was given, Miss Krystle described the timing as “curious.”

“This report leans pro-creator, and then right after it drops, she gets a termination email from the White House,” she said. “It raises questions.”

While the report is technically labeled a “final version of the preliminary report,” a more conclusive final version is expected. Still, Miss Krystle said she doesn’t expect the conclusions to change. “The analysis is solid,” she said. “This thing is persuasive—and it’s giving creatives something real to fight back with.”

Legal Action on the Horizon

Miss Krystlel said she is in the early stages of exploring what a potential lawsuit could look like for independent artists. “This is a balancing moment,” she said. “If we don’t act now, AI companies are going to set the rules—and creatives are going to lose out, again.”

She encouraged artists who believe their music may have been used without consent to reach out and join her firm’s growing list. “We offer free case evaluations. No commitment, just an open door,” she said.

For now, she’s focused on raising awareness and building momentum. “Even in the best-case scenario where the major labels win, independent creators still walk away with nothing,” she said. “That’s not okay. That’s why we’re looking at this so closely.”