Skip to content
Compute Docket

Case file · LG München I

GEMA v. OpenAI, L.L.C. and OpenAI Ireland Ltd.

LG München I Docket 42 O 14139/24

LG München I judgment, 42 O 14139/24, GRUR-RS 2025, 30204 (2025-11-11)

Record reviewed

First-instance judgment and source limits

As alleged in the claims summarized by LG München I (42 O 14139/24, ¶ 1) [§ 51], GEMA sought copyright and personality-rights relief concerning nine song lyrics.

As stated by the defendants in the submissions summarized by the court (42 O 14139/24, ¶¶ 76, 99) [§ 70], the models did not store or copy specific training data, and the text-and-data-mining exceptions should cover any assumed reproductions resulting from training in the models, not only preparation of the training corpus.

The court ruling (42 O 14139/24, ¶¶ 137, 292, 301–308) [§ 100]: in its first-instance judgment, LG München I denied the separate request to prohibit attributing the altered output lyrics to the original lyricists under general personality rights and UrhG § 13, while leaving distortion under UrhG § 14 undecided.

The court ruling (42 O 14139/24, header, Tenor 1(a), ¶¶ 8, 159, 165–182) [§ 101]: on November 11, 2025, LG München I held that the lyrics at issue were wholly or partly reproduced in the models at issue (4 and 4o), with memorization and physical fixation in model parameters constituting reproduction under UrhG § 16 on the record presented.

The court ruling (42 O 14139/24, ¶¶ 234, 244, 257–258) [§ 102]: in that judgment, the court found recognizable original elements of each lyric in the specified outputs and held the defendants responsible for reproduction and making available under UrhG §§ 16, 19a, 23.

The court ruling (42 O 14139/24, ¶¶ 275–277) [§ 104]: the court attributed the output reproductions to the defendants because of their control over training, model architecture and memorization, and did not treat users entering the simple prompts at issue as reproducers.

According to the court docket reference in the official Bayern.Recht judgment record (Rechtsmittelinstanz, reviewed on 2026-11-04) [§ 152], the record lists OLG München, 6 U 3662/25 e with -- for the date and does not state an appellate disposition; this undated reference does not establish current appellate pendency or outcome.

Issues addressed in the record

As stated by the court in that first-instance judgment (42 O 14139/24, ¶¶ 193, 196, 200) [§ 103], UrhG § 44b and Article 4 of the DSM Directive can cover phase-1 training-corpus preparation copies, which were not at issue.

As stated by the court (42 O 14139/24, ¶¶ 203–205, 281–283) [§ 105], those TDM provisions did not cover the phase-2 reproduction of the lyrics in the models or the challenged output reproductions and making available.

Decisions on the record

Related rulings

01 published

  1. LG München I

    Lyric memorization in models 4 and 4o

    Reviewed

    Read decision: LG München I judgment, 42 O 14139/24 (2025-11-11)

    Holding or outcome

    The court ruling (42 O 14139/24, Tenor 1(a), ¶¶ 8, 159, 165–182) [§ 110]: in its November 11, 2025 first-instance judgment, LG München I enjoined the unconsented reproduction of the lyrics at issue, wholly or partly, in language models, as occurred in models 4 and 4o.

    Reasoning

    As stated by the court (42 O 14139/24, ¶¶ 168–182, 184–185) [§ 111], the comparison of the lyrics with the outputs from simple prompts established memorization on this record, and reproducible fixation in model parameters constituted reproduction under UrhG § 16 without requiring a specifically delineable dataset within the model.

    Training corpus, model and output distinctions

    As stated by the court (42 O 14139/24, ¶¶ 193, 196, 200, 203–205) [§ 112], UrhG § 44b and Article 4 of the DSM Directive can cover phase-1 training-corpus preparation copies, which were not at issue, but did not cover the additional phase-2 reproductions of the lyrics in the models.

    The court ruling (42 O 14139/24, Tenor 1(b), ¶¶ 281–283) [§ 113]: the judgment separately enjoined the challenged output reproductions and making available, including adaptations, and held those acts outside the text-and-data-mining exceptions.

    Ruling sources (1)
    1. LG München I judgment, 42 O 14139/24 (2025-11-11) (external link)

      Court orderBayern.Recht / Landgericht München IAccessed Claim record §§ 110–113

      LG München I, 42 O 14139/24, Endurteil, Tenor 1(a)–(b), ¶¶ 159–205, 281–283 (Nov. 11, 2025)

Read the record

Case sources

Direct documents and docket references, grouped with court records first.

Court orders and opinions(1)

  1. LG München I judgment, 42 O 14139/24, GRUR-RS 2025, 30204 (2025-11-11) (external link)

    Bayern.Recht / Landgericht München IAccessed Claim record §§ 100–105

    GEMA v. OpenAI, LG München I, 42 O 14139/24, Endurteil, ¶¶ 1–315 (Nov. 11, 2025)

Other references(2)

  1. Official LG München I press release on the judgment (2025-11-11) (external link)

    Landgericht München IAccessed Claim record § 101

    LG München I, press release concerning 42 O 14139/24 (Nov. 11, 2025)

  2. WIPO Lex case metadata (external link)

    World Intellectual Property OrganizationAccessed Claim record §§ 1–7

    WIPO Lex, GEMA v. OpenAI, LG München I, 42 O 14139/24