Elvis Presley estate sues Anthropic over unauthorized AI training

The lawsuit against Anthropic

Authentic Brands Group, the licensing group that manages the music and likeness of Elvis Presley, has filed a lawsuit against the AI company Anthropic. The legal action alleges that the company used 274 of Presley's songs to train its AI models without obtaining the necessary permissions. This move follows a history of record labels and the RIAA filing similar complaints against AI developers.

The lawsuit specifically identifies several of Presley's most famous hits as part of the unauthorized training data. These include well-known tracks such as "All Shook Up," "Can't Help Falling in Love," and "Don't Be Cruel." The complaint also includes many of the artist's lesser-known recordings from his extensive catalog.

According to the filing, the plaintiffs are attempting to enforce their exclusive rights against a company they claim built its business on large-scale copyright infringement. Lead attorney Richard Busch stated that the plaintiffs are "deeply protective of these iconic songs." The legal team is seeking $150,000 for every individual song they claim was infringed upon.

How the AI uses the music

The lawsuit argues that Anthropic's AI model, known as Claude, has been trained on copyrighted material available across the internet. The plaintiffs claim that the model is capable of generating infringing outputs that mirror the structure of the original music. They argue that the AI is not just being inspired by the music but is actively reproducing it.

The complaint highlights a specific instance where the model was asked to recreate Presley's songs for a modern audience. In that interaction, the AI reportedly admitted that its renders stayed very close to the originals by reusing the same hooks and structures. It also used full sets of verses, choruses, and bridges while only applying light rewording to the lyrics.

The legal team argues that these actions cross the line from being "inspired by" a work to reproducing a copyrighted song. They contend that swapping out a few words does not change the fact that the underlying composition remains protected. This focus on the underlying structure of the music is a central point of the legal argument.

Legal precedents and history

This lawsuit is notable because it represents one of the first major instances where an artist's estate has taken direct legal action against an AI company. While major record labels like Universal and Warner Bros. have faced similar litigation, the involvement of a specific artist's estate adds a new layer to the copyright debate. The case focuses on the creation of what the plaintiffs call "unlicensed derivative works."

The lead attorney for the Elvis estate, Richard Busch, has experience in high-profile music copyright cases. He previously represented the Marvin Gaye estate in a landmark lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over the song "Blurred Lines." That case established significant questions about how much of a previous work's "feel" or "vibe" can be used in a new creation.

By drawing parallels to the Marvin Gaye case, the Elvis plaintiffs are attempting to show that AI models are performing a similar type of infringement. They want the court to recognize that using a song's unique structure and hooks without permission is a violation of rights. The case seeks to establish boundaries for how AI companies can use historical music catalogs.

The scale of the damages

The financial stakes of this lawsuit are significant for both the estate and the AI company. Because the plaintiffs are seeking $150,000 for each of the 274 songs, the total amount requested is roughly $41 million. This calculation assumes that every single song mentioned in the complaint qualifies as an infringed work under current law.

The lawsuit claims that Anthropic's business model relies on the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials on a scale that has never been seen before. By targeting a large number of tracks, the estate aims to demonstrate that the infringement is not an isolated incident but a systemic issue. They want to ensure that the commercial value of Presley's music is protected from being diluted by AI outputs.

If the court rules in favor of the estate, it could set a standard for how much compensation artists are owed for the use of their work in training sets. It could also lead to a requirement for AI companies to license music catalogs before they can include them in their training data. For now, the legal process will determine how these rights are balanced against the development of new technology.

What comes next for AI

The outcome of this case will likely have a major impact on how AI companies approach data collection and copyright. If the estate wins, it may force companies like Anthropic to develop more robust systems for identifying and excluding copyrighted works. It could also create a new market where AI companies must pay licensing fees to access famous music catalogs.

Anthropic has previously attempted to implement guardrails to prevent the model from generating infringing content after being sued by other entities. However, the Elvis plaintiffs argue that these guardrails are currently insufficient because the model can still produce outputs that are too close to the originals. The court will have to decide if these