YouTube has asserted in a new court filing that its terms of service provide a broad license to use music uploaded by independent artists for AI training, including its Lyria 3 music generation model.
The filing responds to a lawsuit brought earlier this year against Google by a group of independent musicians and producers. They allege the company trained Lyria 3 on copyrighted songs they had uploaded to YouTube without permission. Google’s response calls the accusation an “unsupported hypothesis” but argues that even if the claim were true, YouTube’s standard upload terms grant the necessary rights.
Terms of Service as a Training License
The relevant clause, cited in the filing, states that by uploading content, users grant YouTube:
a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use that content (including to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, display and perform it) in connection with the service and YouTube’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business.
The dispute focuses on material uploaded directly by independent creators, not music supplied by major or independent labels. Those commercial partners may have separate licensing agreements that specifically address AI training.
Earlier Signals and Opt-Out Limits
Google previewed this legal stance earlier in the year when it expanded access to Lyria 3. A company blog post at the time said Google had “been very mindful of copyright and partner agreements as we’ve trained Lyria 3.” When journalists asked for clarification, representatives stated the model was trained on music that YouTube and Google had the rights to use “under their terms of service, partner agreements and applicable law.”
YouTube generated $60 billion from advertising and subscriptions in 2025 alone. The platform allows creators to opt out of having their uploads used for third-party AI training, but that opt-out does not cover models developed by YouTube or Google themselves.
Questions for Label Partners
The filing also raises questions for major music companies that have publicly praised YouTube’s AI approach and are building tools in partnership with the platform. Independent artists may now seek clarity on what those partners knew about the origins of the training data used in the models at the center of those collaborations.
YouTube has spent the past decade improving its relationship with the music industry through systems like Content ID and its subscription music services, transforming from a “value gap” antagonist into a key rightsholder partner. The platform has also served as a vital distribution and audience-building channel for countless independent musicians operating outside traditional label deals. The current legal argument, however, exposes a tension between that creator-friendly positioning and the scope of the license embedded in its terms of service.
