{"id":50189,"date":"2025-09-08T03:45:10","date_gmt":"2025-09-08T03:45:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/50189\/"},"modified":"2025-09-08T03:45:10","modified_gmt":"2025-09-08T03:45:10","slug":"anthropic-agrees-to-1-5-billion-settlement-in-ai-copyright-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/50189\/","title":{"rendered":"Anthropic Agrees to $1.5 Billion Settlement in AI Copyright Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Anthropic<\/a> will reportedly pay $1.5 billion to settle a high-profile copyright violation lawsuit.<\/p>\n

The artificial intelligence (AI) startup was sued last year<\/a> by a group of authors who accused the company of illegally accessing their books.<\/p>\n

Under the terms of this settlement, Anthropic will pay around $3,000 per book as well as interest, and will also destroy the datasets that contain the allegedly pirated material, CNBC reported<\/a> Friday (Sept. 5), citing a court filing.<\/p>\n

The report noted that the case had caught the attention of AI startups and media companies trying to get a sense of the copyright infringement atmosphere in the AI age. Assuming the settlement is approved, it will be the largest publicly reported copyright recovery on record, the court filing said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis settlement sends a powerful message to AI companies and creators alike that taking copyrighted works from these pirate websites is wrong,\u201d Justin Nelson, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a statement to CNBC.<\/p>\n

PYMNTS has contacted Anthropic for comment but has not yet gotten a reply.<\/p>\n

The suit, brought by authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson, had accused Anthropic of \u201clargescale copyright infringement by downloading and commercially exploiting books that it obtained from allegedly pirated datasets.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

A judge had ruled in June that Anthropic\u2019s use of books to train its models fell under the \u201cfair use\u201d umbrella<\/a>, but ordered a trial to determine if the company had infringed on copyright by using works from the databases Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cIn June, the district court issued a landmark ruling on AI development and copyright law, finding that Anthropic\u2019s approach to training AI models constitutes fair use,\u201d said Aparna Sridhar, deputy general counsel at Anthropic. \u201cToday\u2019s settlement, if approved, will resolve the plaintiffs\u2019 remaining legacy claims. We remain committed to developing safe AI systems that help people and organizations extend their capabilities, advance scientific discovery, and solve complex problems.\u201d<\/p>\n

The news follows a report from late last month that Anthropic and the authors had agreed to a settlement<\/a> ahead of that trial.<\/p>\n

As PYMNTS wrote in July, the ruling in Anthropic\u2019s case,\u2013 and a similar decision<\/a> involving Meta, appeared to be emboldening tech firms.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a green light for the most common approaches AI companies have taken to model training,\u201d Cecilia Ziniti<\/a>, CEO of GC AI<\/a> and a former general counsel, told PYMNTS.<\/p>\n

Still, she cautioned, \u201cit\u2019s not an all clear,\u201d pointing to pending lawsuits including The New York Times v. OpenAI<\/a> and Disney v. Midjourney. Other similar suits include one filed last month<\/a> against Perplexity by two Japanese media companies.<\/p>\n

Irina Tsukerman<\/a>, an attorney and president of Scarab Rising<\/a>, argued the rulings marked an erosion of control<\/a> for creators.<\/p>\n

\u201cCopyright has long protected the right not just to profit from a work, but to decide how and when it is used,\u201d she said. \u201cNow, that control is slipping away.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Anthropic will reportedly pay $1.5 billion to settle a high-profile copyright violation lawsuit. The artificial intelligence (AI) startup…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":50190,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[261],"tags":[291,6006,289,290,30258,37020,18,5568,19,17,5,1351,82,2350],"class_list":{"0":"post-50189","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-artificial-intelligence","8":"tag-ai","9":"tag-anthropic","10":"tag-artificial-intelligence","11":"tag-artificialintelligence","12":"tag-copyright","13":"tag-copyright-violations","14":"tag-eire","15":"tag-generative-ai","16":"tag-ie","17":"tag-ireland","18":"tag-news","19":"tag-pymnts-news","20":"tag-technology","21":"tag-whats-hot"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50189","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50189\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/50190"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}