The court decided that the plaintiff is entitled to claim injunctive relief against the entire song even if she only has copyrights to the song’s lyrics. It reached the following key findings:
In general, the burden of proof regarding the protectability of a work lies with the plaintiff as the author. After the defendant disputed the presumption of authorship under Section 10(1) UrhG (German Copyright Act) in a qualified manner by submitting an expert opinion, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to explain in detail why the indications in the expert opinion are to be considered untrue and how the creative process took place in the specific case, and – if an AI system was used – which design elements are based on human creativity. In a preliminary injunction proceeding, the plaintiff may submit an affidavit to prove that she did not use AI for creating the lyrics.
The plaintiff successfully demonstrated that she wrote the lyrics herself without using AI. The Court found that the inconsistencies and breaks in the lyrics, though strong indications of AI use, can simultaneously be expressions of artistic freedom and creativity. Therefore, the AI indications from the expert opinion alone do not suffice to prove that the work lacks the creativity necessary for copyright protection. However, in an obiter dictum, the Court stated that if the plaintiff had created the lyrics using AI, there would be a strong case for denying the lyrics' copyright protectability.
Changes to copyright-protected lyrics can be permissible adaptations under Section 23(1) UrhG, even if AI was used, provided that the protectable components of the lyrics remain sufficiently recognizable after the changes made by the AI. If this condition is met, the adaptation still falls within the scope of the lyrics' copyright protection. Any unauthorized adaptation of such a version that itself does not maintain sufficient distance from the AI-edited version constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the lyrics.