Elvis Presley estate sues Anthropic over use of 274 songs

The lawsuit against Anthropic

Authentic Brands Group, the licensing group that manages the music of Elvis Presley, has officially filed a lawsuit against the AI company Anthropic. The legal action, which was filed on October 23, accuses the company of using 274 of Presley's songs to train its artificial intelligence models without obtaining permission. The estate is seeking roughly $41 million in damages for these actions.

The lawsuit specifically names several of Presley's most famous hits, including "Can't Help Falling in Love," "A Little Less Conversation," and "Don't Be Cruel." The plaintiffs argue that the AI giant behind the Claude model has infringed on the exclusive rights held by the estate. They claim the company has built a business model that relies on large-scale copyright infringement.

Lead attorney Richard Busch stated in the filing that the plaintiffs are "deeply protective of these iconic songs." He argued that the company is enforcing exclusive rights against a defendant that has utilized copyrighted material on an unprecedented scale. This legal move signals a firm stance by the estate to protect the commercial and cultural value of Presley's catalog from unauthorized AI use.

Allegations of infringing output

A central part of the lawsuit involves how the AI model, Claude, handles requests to recreate specific music. The plaintiffs claim that the model can produce infringing output for virtually every song available on the internet. They argue that even after the company supposedly implemented guardrails to prevent such actions, the model continues to produce unauthorized content.

The lawsuit points to a specific instance where a user asked the AI to recreate songs for a modern audience. According to the filing, the AI admitted that its renders remained very close to the originals by reusing the same structure and hooks with only light rewording. The estate argues that these outputs go beyond being "inspired by" the original work and instead reproduce the copyrighted material.

The plaintiffs highlight that the AI's output includes full sets of verses, choruses, and bridges. They contend that swapping out a few words does not change the fact that the underlying composition is being copied. This specific behavior is being used as evidence that the AI model is capable of creating unlicensed derivative works from the Presley catalog.

A shift in legal strategy

While many large record labels like Universal and Warner Bros. have faced similar lawsuits from the RIAA, this case is unique in its origin. This is one of the first times an artist's estate has brought a direct legal action against an AI company for training purposes. It marks a transition from corporate-led litigation to the protection of individual artistic legacies.

The attorney representing the Presley 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." This history suggests a strategic approach to protecting the integrity of classic music against unauthorized commercial use.

The current lawsuit against Anthropic shares similarities with the Marvin Gaye case in its core argument. Both actions assert that AI companies are using copyrighted songs to create unlicensed derivative works. By focusing on the estate's rights, the lawsuit seeks to establish a boundary for how AI models can interact with historical musical works without compensation.

The impact on AI development

This lawsuit could have significant implications for how AI companies source the data they use to train their models. If the court finds that training on 274 songs without permission constitutes infringement, it could force companies to seek licenses for vast amounts of music. This would change the current landscape where many models are trained on publicly available internet data without direct payment to the creators.

For the AI industry, the case highlights the difficulty of creating "guardrails" that effectively prevent the reproduction of copyrighted structures. The lawsuit suggests that even when companies try to limit output, the underlying training data may still allow for the creation of very similar works. This creates a technical and legal challenge for developers trying to balance creative utility with copyright compliance.

The outcome of this case may determine whether estates can successfully block AI companies from using historical catalogs. It puts the licensing group in a position to set the terms for how Presley's music is used in the future. The result could influence how other artists and estates decide to manage their rights in an era of generative technology.