Automated translation by Reuters using machine learning and AI, please refer to the following disclaimer: (source)
by Blake Brittain
Music publishers Universal Music Group, Concord, and ABKCO have asked a California judge to rule that U.S. copyright law does not exempt the artificial intelligence startup Anthropic from liability for copying the lyrics of their songs to train its AI-powered chatbot Claude. The publishers’ request, filed on Monday in federal court in San Jose, raises a key question in the legal battle between creators and technology companies: Does the doctrine of “fair use” apply to the copying of millions of copyrighted works to train AI models?
The publishers argued in the complaint filed on Monday that the lyrics generated by Claude’s AI are not fair use because they are derivatives of the publishers’ lyrics that “compete and dilute the market” for these works. The publishers also claimed that Claude also reproduced their lyrics on demand without authorization.
Spokespersons for Anthropic and the publishing houses did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday. This lawsuit is part of dozens of disputes pitting copyright holders such as authors and press entities against technology giants including OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms over the training of their AI systems. Anthropic, backed by Amazon and Google, became the first major AI company to settle one of these lawsuits last year, agreeing to pay $1.5 billion to a group of authors to settle a class action. Music publishers sued Anthropic in 2023, alleging it violated their copyrights on the lyrics of at least 500 songs by musicians like Beyoncé, The Rolling Stones, and The Beach Boys.
All ongoing cases are likely to focus on whether AI systems make fair use of copyrighted material by using it to create new and transformative content. On Monday, publishers asked U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee to declare before trial that Anthropic infringed their copyrights and to reject Anthropic’s fair use defense. Anthropic denied the allegations but has not yet argued for fair use in the music publishers’ case. Judge William Alsup in San Francisco ruled last year in a separate case that Anthropic’s use of books for AI training was “essentially transformative,” siding with the company on that issue. Alsup and another Northern California judge provided conflicting rulings on fair use in AI training. The publishers argued on Monday that, unlike authors in these cases, their history of having Claude reproduce their works on demand is “overwhelming.”
The case is Concord Music Group Inc v. Anthropic PBC, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 5:24-cv-03811.
For music publishers: Matt Oppenheim of Oppenheim + Zebrak
For Anthropic: Sonal Mehta of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
Learn more:
- Music publishers sue AI firm Anthropic over song lyrics
- Music publishers push back on Anthropic’s bid to dismiss certain copyright claims over AI
- Copyright battles over AI reach pivotal year as U.S. courts consider fair use
