The Pulse
Anthropic and Music Publishers Press Fair-Use Fight Toward Trial
Anthropic and music publishers argued competing summary-judgment motions in California over Claude’s use of copyrighted song lyrics. Judge Eumi K. Lee focused on potential market harm as she weighed whether the case could go to trial.
AI.info Team · Written with AI · fact-checked ·
“[AI] models shouldn’t output copyrighted content because it’s—it’s against the law to do so.”
Dario Amodei, Anthropic co-founder and CEO, quoted in the music publishers’ court filing
The quote appears in the publishers’ March court filing, which cites it as an admission by Anthropic’s chief executive. On October 21, the company and music publishers returned to a California federal courtroom to argue whether Claude’s use of copyrighted lyrics qualifies as fair use. Judge Eumi K. Lee pressed both sides about potential harm to the publishers and whether the dispute might become the first AI copyright case to reach trial, Bloomberg Law reported.
Lee’s questions turned to market harm
Lee’s questions focused on the possible effect of Anthropic’s copying on the market for, or value of, the original works. Market effect is one of the four statutory factors courts weigh when deciding fair use. Bloomberg Law reported that the judge arrived with eight binders of case materials, reflecting the extensive record before her.
The hearing addressed competing requests for summary judgment, which ask a judge to decide claims without a trial. Anthropic seeks to defeat the publishers’ case; the publishers want the court to find that the company infringed their copyrights and cannot rely on fair use. The judge’s questions do not establish how she will rule.
The dispute covers 499 works
The case, brought by Concord Music Group, Capitol CMG, Universal Music entities, Polygram Publishing and ABKCO Music, concerns 499 musical works, according to the publishers’ motion. They argue that Anthropic copied lyrics to train Claude and that the model also reproduced lyrics or generated competing material in its responses. Those are the publishers’ claims in litigation, not findings by the court.
In their March motion, the publishers said Anthropic’s use harms licensing markets and can make Claude a substitute for licensed lyric sources. They also argue that generated lyrics compete with human-written songs. Their filing asks the court to reject Anthropic’s fair-use defense, while Anthropic’s effort to end the case puts the legal status of training on copyrighted lyrics before Lee.
A ruling could separate lyrics from books
The case tests a question distinct from whether an AI model can reproduce a lyric when prompted: whether copying protected material to train a model is fair use. The dispute therefore turns on more than the fact that lyrics appeared in training data; the court must weigh the purpose and character of the use, the nature and amount of the material, and its effect on relevant markets.
Anthropic has prevailed on a fair-use question in a separate lawsuit over books, but that dispute involved different works and a different record. A decision in the lyrics case would add another ruling to an unsettled body of law, not automatically decide other copyright disputes. For now, Lee’s focus on market harm places the publishers’ evidence of licensing and substitution at the center of the case.