Hawaii Artists Fight Back as AI Platforms Use Their Music Without Permission

In a high‑stakes lawsuit that spotlights the clash between creative ownership and cutting‑edge technology, a coalition of Hawaiian recording artists has filed suit against AI‑music platforms Suno and Udio. The case alleges that the companies incorporated the artists’ tracks into their training data without consent, seeking damages and an injunction to halt further use.

The dispute hinges on the Atlantic’s AI Watchdog database, a 2025 launch that catalogs over ten million music files used to train generative‑AI models. The searchable archive lists recordings from artists worldwide, and a substantial number of Hawaiian musicians are represented. Among the flagged songs are Israel Kamakawiwo’ole’s “White Sandy Beach,” recent releases by Anuhea, the catalog of Kolohe Kai, and work by Thomas Iannucci, a Kauai‑based rapper who has won the Na Hoku Hanohano award.

Iannucci learned of his music’s presence in the database only days ago when a fellow industry professional shared the information. “They took these songs without our consent, without asking, without paying, no compensation, and for free, basically, or in other words, stealing,” he told HawaiiNewsNow. He added that the experience felt “predatory” and “annoying more than anything else.”

Professional songwriter Chaz Umamoto, who has collaborated with both Suno and Udio, weighed in on the platforms’ value. “Suno has a $5 billion value…and I know so many artists here that couldn’t survive during the pandemic,” Umamoto said. He and Iannucci are contemplating joining a class‑action suit that is already in progress.

The lawsuit is part of a broader wave of legal action targeting AI‑music generators. In 2025, the Recording Industry Association of America filed suits against Suno and Udio, accusing them of training on copyrighted music without permission. Those lawsuits prompted settlements with major labels: Warner Music Group reached an agreement with Suno, and Universal Music Group settled with Udio. Sony and other labels are still pursuing claims.

Entertainment lawyer Julia Brotman cautions that the legal landscape is complex. “Because it’s so complicated, a lot of people just don’t even touch it. A lot of those cases settle. Because of that, there’s actually not a ton of case law to make it really clear,” she explained.

Neither Suno nor Udio has disclosed the specific datasets that fed their models. Suno, launched in December 2023, offers a web application that generates music from text or audio prompts, while Udio, released publicly in April 2024, also creates music based on text prompts and provides subscription tiers for enhanced features.

The AI Watchdog project, conceived by The Atlantic, was designed to expose the data sources of large tech companies. By aggregating tracks from four major music‑industry databases, the project enables artists to search for their own recordings and has revealed that AI‑music generators may be using copyrighted works without licensing.

At present, the plaintiffs are seeking both monetary damages and an injunction to prevent further use of their music. Suno and Udio have not yet responded to a request for comment.

The case underscores the tension between the rapid development of generative AI and the rights of artists whose work may be used without permission. It also illustrates the challenges that smaller, regional artists face when confronting large technology firms. The outcome of this litigation is likely to influence how AI‑music platforms handle copyrighted material and how artists can protect their intellectual property in the age of generative technology.