A recent federal court ruling has preserved, rather than blocked, the ability of major music publishers to pursue copyright infringement claims against artificial intelligence company Anthropic. The case, which involves eight prominent publishers including Universal, Concord, and ABKCO, has gained significant attention as a landmark battle over AI’s use of copyrighted material.
US District Judge Eumi K Lee rejected Anthropic’s motions to dismiss, reinstating all copyright claims that had been previously dismissed and allowing the lawsuit to proceed in full. The judge determined that the publishers had presented plausible legal arguments sufficient to move forward with claims of direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement, as well as allegations regarding illegal removal of copyright management information.
Judge Lee’s ruling enables publishers to pursue all infringement claims against Anthropic, finding their legal arguments plausible enough to proceed.
Contrary to some reports, court records do not indicate that music publishers were blocked from joining the lawsuit. Rather, the existing plaintiff publishers have received judicial approval to continue their case, which involves over 500 songs from renowned artists including Beyoncé, The Rolling Stones, and The Beach Boys. The publishers are likely seeking a lucrative settlement from Anthropic, especially considering the company’s recent $13 billion investment.
The lawsuit centers on Anthropic’s Claude chatbot, which publishers allege reproduces copyrighted lyrics without permission. Judge Lee’s ruling highlights Anthropic’s “guardrails” – safety features designed to prevent copyright violations – as evidence that the company was aware of potential infringement by users.
These guardrails, ironically, became key evidence supporting the publishers’ claims of secondary liability. “The existence of these guardrails suggests Anthropic knew its users were generating infringing content,” noted an industry observer familiar with the case, “yet the company continued to profit while its preventative measures apparently failed.”
The case has significant implications for the AI industry, potentially establishing precedent for how AI companies must handle copyrighted material in both their training data and user-generated outputs. The court recognized that Anthropic may have financially benefited when publishers’ lyrics increased Claude’s value and popularity among users. Musicians and songwriters are watching this case closely, as unauthorized AI use threatens sync deals which represent one of their most profitable revenue streams. As litigation proceeds, the music publishing industry watches closely, seeing this as a vital battle in protecting intellectual property rights in the rapidly evolving artificial intelligence landscape.
Organizations like performing rights organizations play a crucial role in this dispute, as they represent songwriters and music publishers by collecting royalties when their compositions are publicly performed or reproduced.
