Elvis Presley music owners sue Anthropic over 274 songs used by Claude

The lawsuit against Anthropic

Authentic Brands Group and several other owners of the Elvis Presley music catalog have filed a copyright lawsuit against Anthropic. The legal action was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, which include Raleigh Music Publishing and various trusts, are seeking significant financial compensation for the use of their intellectual property.

The lawsuit specifically targets the company behind the Claude AI chatbot. The owners allege that Anthropic used the lyrics of 274 Elvis songs to train its models without obtaining any licenses or providing payment. The complaint characterizes the company's business model as being built on copyright infringement at a scale that has never been seen before in the industry.

In response to the allegations, an Anthropic spokesperson issued a brief statement to The Hollywood Reporter. The company stated that it disagrees with the claims made by the music owners. They also noted that they intend to defend the case fully in court. This marks another major legal hurdle for the AI firm as it navigates the complexities of copyright law.

Specific songs and training data

The complaint lists several of Elvis Presley's most famous works as being included in the unauthorized training data. These include popular tracks such as "All Shook Up," "Can’t Help Falling in Love," "Don’t Be Cruel," and "Return to Sender." The plaintiffs argue that these works were ingested into the system during the entire development process of the Claude model.

The lawsuit further alleges that the unauthorized use of these songs is still occurring on an ongoing basis today. It claims that when users interact with the chatbot, they can still prompt the AI to provide lyrics or create new versions of these specific songs. The plaintiffs argue that the AI is effectively reproducing the copyrighted material rather than simply being inspired by it.

According to the complaint, the AI's output can be remarkably close to the original source material. The plaintiffs point out that the model often maintains the same structure, hooks, and full sets of verses and choruses. They argue that even when the words are slightly swapped out, the AI is still edging past the line of legal inspiration into reproduction.

Bypassing copyright protections

The plaintiffs also accuse Anthropic of taking active steps to circumvent existing measures designed to protect music. The complaint claims that the company removed or changed copyright management information during the data collection process. These types of metadata are typically used to identify and protect the rights of the original creators.

Furthermore, the lawsuit asserts that the guardrails Anthropic implemented following previous legal challenges are not functioning correctly. The plaintiffs argue that these safety measures do not prevent the model from generating content that infringes on their rights. They suggest that the current protections are insufficient to stop the unauthorized use of the catalog.

The legal team representing the Elvis plaintiffs is led by Richard Busch, who also represents other major music entities. His involvement suggests a coordinated effort among music publishers to protect their catalogs from AI training. This case joins a growing list of lawsuits from major labels and publishers against both Anthropic and other AI music companies.

A broader industry trend

This lawsuit is part of a massive wave of litigation involving the music industry and generative AI. Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell have both sued Anthropic over the inclusion of lyrics in Claude's training data. Additionally, Universal Music Publishing Group, Concord, and ABKCO have been involved in similar legal actions since 2023.

Other companies are also facing pressure from the music industry. The AI music company Suno has been targeted by labels over the use of recordings in its products. These cases reflect a systemic conflict between the technology companies building new tools and the traditional entities that own the world's cultural history.

Anthropic has already faced significant legal costs in the AI space, including a $1.5 billion settlement with authors over pirated books. The timing of the Elvis lawsuit is also notable, as it was filed just three days before Anthropic made its S-1 filing public for an IPO on Nasdaq. These developments indicate a high-stakes environment for the company's future growth.

What comes next for AI

The Elvis plaintiffs are requesting a full jury trial to decide the merits of the copyright claims. They are also seeking a permanent injunction against Anthropic to stop the unauthorized use of their music. If successful, the court could order the company to destroy all unauthorized copies of the training data used to build Claude.

The outcome of this case will likely set a precedent for how other AI companies handle copyrighted lyrics. If the court finds that training on these songs is not fair use, it could force a massive restructuring of how AI models are developed. This would require companies to secure licenses for every piece of data they use for training.

For now, the legal battle remains in the early stages as the court evaluates the arguments presented by both sides. The music industry is looking for a clear ruling that protects their revenue streams from being diluted by AI. Meanwhile, Anthropic will continue to argue that its practices fall under the protections of current US law.