Anthropic sued for using 274 Elvis Presley songs to train AI

The lawsuit against Anthropic

Anthropic is facing a new legal challenge from the owners of Elvis Presley's music catalog. The lawsuit alleges that the company used the iconic singer's music to train its artificial intelligence models without obtaining the necessary permissions. This legal action was filed on Friday to protect the exclusive rights held by the music's owners.

The complaint specifically identifies 274 songs from Presley's career as being used in the training process. These include some of the most recognizable hits in history, such as "Can't Help Falling in Love," "A Little Less Conversation," and "Don't Be Cruel." The plaintiffs argue that these works were taken to build a business model that relies on large-scale copyright infringement.

Authentic Brands Group, which currently owns the rights to Presley's music, filed the suit alongside several other entities. These groups are described as being deeply protective of the singer's legacy. As reported by hollywoodreporter.com, the suit aims to enforce rights against the technology company's methods of data collection.

Allegations of infringing output

The plaintiffs claim that Anthropic's AI agent, Claude, is capable of creating infringing content from almost every catalog available on the internet. They argue that the model does not just learn from the music but actually reproduces the copyrighted material. The lawsuit suggests that the AI can recreate specific songs for modern audiences while maintaining the original structure.

According to the filing, the AI has demonstrated an ability to reuse specific hooks and structures with only minor changes to the wording. The plaintiffs argue that these results go beyond being merely inspired by the original works. They contend that the AI is instead reproducing the copyrighted songs by swapping out some of the lyrics while keeping the core components intact.

The lawsuit points out that these issues persist even after the company reportedly attempted to implement guardrails. These safety measures are intended to prevent the AI from generating restricted content, but the plaintiffs claim they have not been effective. They argue that the model still produces outputs that are too close to the original copyrighted works.

Seeking significant damages

The legal action is seeking a substantial amount of money in damages for the use of the music. Specifically, the plaintiffs are seeking $150,000 for every single song they claim was infringed. With 274 songs listed in the complaint, the total amount of requested damages could be significant. This reflects the high value placed on the Presley catalog by the rights holders.

Lead attorney Richard Busch stated that the plaintiffs are bringing this action to enforce their exclusive rights against the defendant. He characterized the company's business model as being built on copyright infringement at a scale that has never been seen before. This framing suggests that the plaintiffs view the AI training process as a systemic issue rather than an isolated incident.

The lawsuit highlights the tension between technological advancement and the protection of intellectual property. By seeking high per-song damages, the plaintiffs are attempting to create a financial deterrent for AI companies. They want to ensure that the use of iconic music for training purposes is not treated as a low-cost way to develop new products.

A pattern of music litigation

This is not the first time Anthropic has faced legal trouble regarding the use of copyrighted music and lyrics. The company was previously sued by a group of entities including Universal Music Publishing, Abcko, Concord, and BMG. Those lawsuits also centered on the claim that the company utilized copyrighted lyrics to train its Claude AI agent.

Additionally, the music industry has been targeting other AI companies in the space. In August, Round Hill filed a lawsuit against both Suno and Anthropic. That suit alleged that both companies engaged in mass copyright infringement by using hundreds of songs from the publisher's catalog without permission to train their models.

These repeated lawsuits indicate a broader trend of music publishers seeking to protect their assets from AI training. As more companies develop generative AI, the industry is increasingly looking for ways to litigate the use of their catalogs. Anthropic has not yet provided a public comment regarding the new Elvis Presley lawsuit.

What comes next for AI

The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for how AI models are trained in the future. If the court finds that the AI's output is too similar to the training data, it could force companies to change their data collection methods. This might involve seeking more licenses or developing different ways to train models without using direct copyrighted works.

The case will likely focus on the distinction between an AI being "inspired" by a work and an AI "reproducing" a work. The plaintiffs are arguing that the current capabilities of Claude fall into the latter category. The court's decision on this distinction will be a key factor in determining the legality of current AI training practices.

For the music industry, this case represents a major test of their ability to protect their catalogs from digital replication. If the plaintiffs succeed, it could lead to a new standard for how AI companies must compensate rights holders. For now, the legal battle continues as the industry watches to see how the courts will balance innovation with copyright protection.