Elvis estate sues Anthropic over use of 274 songs to train Claude AI

The lawsuit against Anthropic

Authentic Brands Group, the licensing entity that manages the music and likeness of Elvis Presley, has filed a lawsuit against the AI company Anthropic. The legal action centers on the unauthorized use of Presley's music to train the company's large language models. Specifically, the suit alleges that Anthropic used 274 of Presley's songs to build its technology.

The lawsuit, filed by ABE EPE LLC v. Anthropic, targets the AI giant behind the Claude chatbot. The plaintiffs argue that the company infringed on the exclusive rights of the music catalog. This legal move is notable because it represents one of the first major instances of an artist's estate taking direct action against an AI firm.

Lead attorney Richard Busch stated that the plaintiffs are "deeply protective of these iconic songs." He argued in the filing that the defendant has built a business model based on copyright infringement on a massive scale. The suit seeks $150,000 for each of the 274 tracks, totaling approximately $41 million in damages.

Songs and specific allegations

The 274 songs identified in the lawsuit range from massive global hits to lesser-known tracks. The complaint specifically mentions popular titles such as 'All Shook Up,' 'Can't Help Falling in Love,' and 'Don't Be Cruel.' The plaintiffs claim these works were used without any licensing agreements or permissions from the estate.

The lawsuit alleges that the Claude AI has created infringing output for virtually every song in every catalog available on the internet. The plaintiffs argue that the model does not just learn from the music but reproduces it in a way that violates copyright. They claim the AI is capable of generating unlicensed derivative works based on the protected material.

According to the filing, the AI's ability to mimic these songs is a primary concern for the estate. The lawsuit suggests that the technology is being used to create new versions of the music that still rely on the original's core identity. This creates a legal conflict over where 'inspiration' ends and 'reproduction' begins in the age of generative AI.

How the AI mimics the music

The lawsuit provides specific examples of how Claude interacts with the copyrighted material. It claims that even after Anthropic supposedly implemented guardrails, the model still produced infringing content. When asked to recreate specific songs for a modern audience, the AI reportedly admitted to keeping the same structure and hooks.

The filing notes that the AI's renders kept the same structure, hooks, and full sets of verses, choruses, and bridges. It allegedly only used light rewording to change the lyrics. The lawsuit argues that this behavior edges past being merely inspired by the original work and moves into reproducing the copyrighted song itself.

This technical behavior is at the heart of the legal dispute regarding derivative works. The plaintiffs argue that by keeping the core components of the song—the hooks and the structure—the AI is creating a copy rather than a new creation. This distinction is critical for determining whether the AI company has violated the estate's exclusive rights.

Legal precedents and history

The attorney representing the Elvis estate, Richard Busch, has experience with high-profile music copyright cases. He previously worked on the Marvin Gaye estate's lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over the song 'Blurred Lines.' That case was a landmark moment for how the industry views the protection of musical 'feel' and style.

The current lawsuit against Anthropic follows a trend of record labels and rights holders taking action against AI developers. Companies like Universal and Warner Bros. have previously faced litigation from the RIAA regarding the use of music in training sets. This new case adds a personal dimension by involving a specific artist's legacy and estate.

By bringing this action, the Elvis plaintiffs are attempting to enforce their rights against a company they claim is infringing on copyright at an unprecedented scale. The outcome of this case could influence how other estates and labels approach the licensing of their catalogs for AI training. It sets the stage for a broader conversation on the value of historical music in the digital era.

What comes next for the estate

The litigation will likely focus on the definition of unlicensed derivative works in the context of machine learning. The court will have to decide if the AI's output, which may swap out words while keeping the same structure, constitutes a violation of the original copyright. The estate is looking to establish a clear boundary for how these iconic songs can be used.

If the plaintiffs succeed, it could lead to significant financial penalties for Anthropic and a requirement for AI companies to secure licenses for all music used in training. This would create a new standard for the industry, potentially requiring a licensing model similar to what exists for traditional media. It would also provide a roadmap for other estates looking to protect their intellectual property.

For now, the lawsuit remains a significant hurdle for Anthropic as it navigates the complex landscape of music copyright. The case highlights the growing tension between the rapid development of AI tools and the protection of cultural heritage. The resolution will likely impact how music is shared, trained, and generated in the future.