Automated translation by Reuters using machine learning and generative AI, please refer to the following disclaimer: https://bit.ly/rtrsauto
Addition of complainants’ comment in paragraph 5
by Blake Brittain
Music publishers Universal Music Group, Concord, and ABKCO have asked a California judge to rule that US copyright law does not protect artificial intelligence startup Anthropic from any liability for copying the lyrics of their songs to train its AI-powered chatbot named Claude.
The publishers’ request, filed Monday in federal court in San Jose, raises a crucial question in the legal battle between creators and tech companies: Does the “fair use” doctrine apply to copying 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 do not constitute fair use because they are derivatives of the publishers’ lyrics that “compete and dilute the market” of the original lyrics. The publishers also claimed that Claude reproduced their lyrics on demand without authorization.
Anthropic spokespersons did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
The plaintiffs stated in a press release that Anthropic had “massively violated copyrights” and that the evidence was “overwhelming.”
This lawsuit is part of dozens of disputes between copyright holders, such as authors and news organizations, and tech giants including OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, regarding the training of their AI systems. Anthropic, backed by Amazon and Google, became the first major AI company to settle one of these disputes last year by agreeing to pay $1.5 billion to a group of authors to settle a class action.
The music publishers sued Anthropic in 2023, alleging that it violated their copyrights on the lyrics of at least 500 songs by musicians such as Beyonce, the Rolling Stones, and the Beach Boys.
Current cases will likely focus on whether AI systems make fair use of copyrighted material by using it to create new and transformative content.
On Monday, the publishers asked US District Judge Eumi Lee to declare before trial that Anthropic had infringed their copyrights and to reject Anthropic’s fair use defense. Anthropic has denied the allegations but has not yet argued for fair use in the music publishers’ case.
Judge William Alsup of the San Francisco district stated last year in a separate case that Anthropic’s use of books for AI training was “essentially transformative,” siding with the company on this issue. Alsup and another Northern California district judge have made conflicting decisions on fair use in AI training. The publishers said on Monday that, unlike the authors in those cases, their precedents of Claude reproducing their works on demand are “overwhelming.”
Case: Concord Music Group Inc v. Anthropic PBC, US District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 5:24-cv-03811.
For the music publishers: Matt Oppenheim of Oppenheim + Zebrak
For Anthropic: Sonal Mehta of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
For more information:
Music publishers sue AI company Anthropic over song lyrics
Music publishers push back on Anthropic’s request to dismiss certain copyright claims on AI
Copyright battles over AI reach a turning point as US courts examine fair use
