The complaint, filed on October 23 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Anthropic unlawfully copied song lyrics, incorporated them into its artificial intelligence systems and enabled users to generate unauthorised versions of protected compositions.
The plaintiffs, including ABG EPE IP LLC, a subsidiary of Authentic Brands Group, and music publishers Raleigh Music Publishing and Abilene Music, are seeking statutory damages potentially exceeding $48 million, alongside injunctive relief and legal costs.
Anthropic has rejected the allegations. “We disagree with the claims and intend to defend this case fully,” a company spokesperson said.
The disputed catalogue includes some of Presley’s best-known recordings, among them Can’t Help Falling in Love, All Shook Up, Don’t Be Cruel, A Little Less Conversation and Return to Sender.
The rights holders allege that Anthropic collected copyrighted material from online sources without securing licences or compensating copyright owners. They contend that the company subsequently stored the material in a central repository for use in developing successive versions of Claude.
Their complaint also accuses Anthropic of circumventing technological protections and removing or altering copyright management information associated with the compositions.
The plaintiffs are seeking the maximum statutory copyright infringement damages of $150,000 for each of the 274 compositions, equivalent to $41.1 million. Additional claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act raise the potential financial exposure.
The lawsuit requests a permanent injunction preventing further unauthorised use of the compositions, together with the identification and removal of allegedly infringing copies retained within Anthropic’s systems.
It also seeks an accounting of relevant training datasets and collection activities, potentially requiring disclosure of information about how copyrighted material entered the company’s artificial intelligence development process.
The plaintiffs maintain that Claude can reproduce protected lyrical material or generate derivative versions closely resembling original compositions, even after Anthropic introduced safeguards intended to prevent such outputs.
One allegation concerns requests asking Claude to recreate existing songs for a modern audience. According to the complaint, the resulting material retained recognisable structures, lyrical arrangements and musical hooks despite alterations to the wording.
These examples form part of the plaintiffs’ argument that Anthropic’s safeguards have failed to prevent copyright infringement. The allegations have not been established by a court.
Richard Busch, the lawyer representing the rights holders, said the action was intended to enforce their exclusive rights against what the plaintiffs describe as widespread unauthorised copying.
“The Elvis Plaintiffs are deeply protective of these iconic songs,” Busch said.
The dispute adds another significant challenge to Anthropic’s use of copyrighted works in training generative artificial intelligence models. Music publishers have already brought separate proceedings alleging that Claude reproduces protected lyrics without authorisation.
Anthropic has previously maintained that using copyrighted material to train artificial intelligence can qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Whether particular training practices satisfy that defence depends on the circumstances and remains contested across multiple lawsuits.
The Presley complaint raises questions extending beyond the initial collection of training material. It challenges the retention of copyrighted works, their incorporation into model development and the production of outputs allegedly derived from protected compositions.
Copyright owners argue that such practices undermine their exclusive licensing rights and threaten the commercial value of their catalogues. Artificial intelligence developers have countered in broader litigation that training systems to recognise patterns does not necessarily constitute unlawful reproduction.
The Presley action is particularly notable because it involves rights associated with a single performer, rather than a broad collection of compositions represented by major music publishers.
Authentic Brands Group controls important commercial rights associated with Presley, while the other plaintiffs hold interests in musical compositions performed by the singer. Those distinctions matter because rights over recordings, compositions and an artist’s identity are legally separate.
The complaint identifies the protected compositions through copyright registrations and requests a jury trial. It alleges direct infringement alongside violations involving technological protection measures and copyright ownership information.
The proceedings are registered as ABG EPE IP LLC and others versus Anthropic PBC, case number 5:26-cv-12473. The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers from Adams & Reese and Skaggs Faucette.
The filing also references existing music copyright proceedings against Anthropic before the same federal district court, including disputes involving Concord Music Group and BMG Rights Management.
Those cases involve separate catalogues and allegations, although they address overlapping questions concerning copyrighted lyrics, artificial intelligence training and the legal responsibilities of developers operating generative systems.
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
