Elvis Presley catalog owners sue Anthropic for copyright infringement

The legal filing against Anthropic

The Authentic Brands Group, which manages the licensing rights for Elvis Presley, has officially initiated legal action against the AI company Anthropic. The lawsuit, filed on October 23, centers on the unauthorized use of Presley's music to train the company's AI model, Claude. This move signals a significant escalation in the ongoing legal battles between the music industry and the developers of large language models.

The plaintiffs are seeking a total of $41 million in damages. This figure is calculated based on a request for roughly $150,000 in damages for each of the 274 Presley songs they claim were used without permission. The lawsuit aims to enforce exclusive rights against a company that the plaintiffs argue has built its business model on large-scale copyright infringement.

According to the filing viewed by Pitchfork, the lawsuit includes several co-plaintiffs who also hold ownership over Presley's rights. The legal team argues that these iconic songs are deeply protected and should not be used to develop commercial AI products. This case is notable because it is one of the first instances where a single artist's catalog owner has taken such a high-profile stand against an AI firm.

Specific songs and AI training

The lawsuit identifies a specific list of 274 songs that were allegedly fed into the Claude model during its training phase. These include some of the most recognizable hits from Presley's career, such as 'Can't Help Falling in Love,' 'Don't Be Cruel,' 'Farther Along,' 'If You Think I Don't Need You,' and 'Run On.' The plaintiffs argue that these tracks were used to teach the AI how to generate content based on Presley's specific style and compositions.

The core of the legal argument is that Anthropic infringed on copyrights by creating what the lawsuit calls 'unlicensed derivative works.' By using these songs in the training data, the plaintiffs claim the AI can now produce content that mimics the protected elements of the music. This process of training involves feeding massive amounts of existing data into a system so it can learn patterns, styles, and structures.

The lawsuit alleges that the AI's ability to generate these works is not just a matter of being 'inspired by' the original artist. Instead, the plaintiffs argue that the model reproduces the actual copyrighted components of the music. They contend that the AI is capable of recreating the specific hooks and structures of the songs, even if the specific words are slightly altered during the generation process.

The failure of AI guardrails

A significant portion of the lawsuit focuses on the effectiveness of the safety measures Anthropic has implemented. The plaintiffs claim that even after the company supposedly put up 'guardrails' following previous legal pressure, the model continues to infringe on copyrights. They argue that the current iterations of Claude still allow for the reproduction of protected musical structures when prompted by users.

The lawsuit cites a specific instance where a user asked Claude to recreate certain songs for a modern audience. According to the filing, the AI admitted that its renders were landing very close to the originals. It specifically noted that it was reusing the same structure, hooks, and full sets of verses, choruses, and bridges, while only applying light rewording to the lyrics.

Lead attorney Richard Busch stated in a press release that the plaintiffs are bringing this action to enforce their exclusive rights. He characterized the defendant's actions as building a business model based on copyright infringement at a scale never seen before. The lawsuit suggests that the AI's ability to swap out words while keeping the core musical identity intact is a direct violation of the owners' rights.

Impact on music ownership

This lawsuit represents a shift in how the music industry approaches AI, moving from general complaints by major labels to specific actions by individual catalog owners. By targeting a single artist's massive legacy, the Authentic Brands Group is attempting to set a clear boundary for what constitutes 'fair use' in AI training. They want to ensure that the commercial value of a legendary artist's work is not diluted by AI-generated derivatives.

For the music industry, this case could determine whether training AI on copyrighted material requires a licensing agreement or if it falls under different legal protections. If the plaintiffs succeed, it could create a framework where every song used in a training set must be accounted for and paid for. This would significantly change the economics of how AI companies gather and process data for their models.

For the fans and the general public, the outcome could affect the types of content available through AI tools. If the court finds that these AI outputs are infringing, companies like Anthropic might have to remove certain capabilities or restrict how they respond to prompts about specific artists. The case highlights the difficulty of balancing technological progress with the protection of intellectual property in the digital age.

What comes next for Claude

Anthropic has not yet provided a formal comment on the lawsuit, though the company has faced similar claims from other major labels and music publishers in the past. The company will likely need to defend its training methodologies and argue whether the use of these songs constitutes a transformative use or a direct infringement. The legal battle will likely involve technical experts to determine how much of the original song's structure remains in the AI's output.

The court will have to decide if the AI's ability to recreate the 'hooks' and 'structure' of a song is enough to constitute a derivative work. If the court sides with the Elvis plaintiffs, it could lead to a wave of similar lawsuits from other artists who own their own catalogs. This would force AI companies to seek out licenses for a much wider array of copyrighted content before they can offer these features to the public.

As the case moves forward, the focus will remain on the distinction between inspiration and reproduction. The plaintiffs are pushing for a standard where swapping out words does not exempt a company from copyright laws. The final ruling could provide a roadmap for how the music industry protects its most valuable assets from being synthesized by new technologies.