LOS ANGELES — Owners of 274 compositions associated with Elvis Presley accuse the developer of Claude of using copyrighted music and lyrics without permission, intensifying a legal battle over artificial intelligence training.
Rights holders controlling 274 musical compositions associated with legendary American singer Elvis Presley have filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Anthropic, alleging that the technology company used the works without permission to train its Claude artificial intelligence models.
The action, filed on Friday, October 23, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks approximately US$41.1 million in statutory damages, based on a claim of US$150,000 for each allegedly infringed composition.
The plaintiffs include ABG EPE IP LLC, associated with Authentic Brands Group, alongside music publishers and other entities holding rights to Presley’s musical catalogue.
Among the songs identified in the complaint are “Can’t Help Falling in Love”, “All Shook Up”, “Don’t Be Cruel” and “A Little Less Conversation”.
The lawsuit, first reported by Billboard, alleges that Anthropic copied copyrighted lyrics and compositions without obtaining the necessary licences and that Claude has produced material resembling protected songs.
Anthropic disputes the allegations and has indicated that it intends to defend the proceedings.
Copyright Owners Challenge Claude’s Training Practices
Authentic Brands Group controls significant intellectual property rights associated with Presley, including aspects of his name, image and likeness.
The legal action has been brought through its associated entity and other copyright owners with interests in the compositions.
The distinction is significant because copyright ownership of musical compositions can involve songwriters, publishers, trusts and other rights holders, rather than belonging entirely to the estate of the artist who recorded them.
Lead attorney Richard Busch argues that Anthropic’s business model relies on extensive unauthorised use of copyrighted material.
The plaintiffs contend that the company copied protected works during the development of Claude and incorporated that material into its AI training processes.
They also allege that the model can produce unauthorised derivative versions of existing songs.
According to the complaint, those outputs may retain recognisable elements of original compositions, including song structures and lyrical arrangements, even when some wording is changed.
These assertions remain allegations before the court. No judicial finding has established that Anthropic infringed the copyrights identified in this lawsuit.
Rights Holders Seek More Than $41 Million
The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages calculated at up to US$150,000 for each of the 274 compositions.
That calculation produces a total of US$41.1 million, although additional legal remedies and costs are also being pursued.
The complaint seeks measures intended to prevent further alleged infringement, alongside relief concerning unauthorised copies of copyrighted material.
Its allegations extend beyond the initial collection of training data to the continuing use of protected works and the effectiveness of safeguards intended to prevent reproduction of copyrighted lyrics.
Anthropic has rejected the claims and said it will contest the case.
The dispute therefore turns on questions that remain unresolved, including whether the alleged copying occurred as described and whether any relevant use is legally protected under US copyright law.
Music Industry Copyright Disputes Intensify
The Presley lawsuit follows a series of legal challenges brought by music publishers and rights holders against artificial intelligence developers.
Companies associated with Universal Music Publishing Group, Sony and Warner have raised concerns about the use of copyrighted musical works in AI development.
Anthropic is already defending other litigation concerning allegations that copyrighted lyrics were used without authorisation.
In separate proceedings, the company has argued that using copyrighted material to train a general-purpose language model may constitute fair use under US law.
Music publishers dispute that position, arguing that AI systems capable of reproducing protected lyrics could undermine licensing markets and the economic value of their catalogues.
Those legal arguments are being examined in ongoing litigation, and their outcomes cannot be assumed.
The Presley case is particularly notable because it involves a catalogue associated with one of the most recognisable musicians in recording history, rather than a broad collection of works represented solely by major publishers.
Court Decision Could Influence Future AI Licensing
The proceedings add to a growing dispute over whether AI developers must obtain permission or pay licensing fees when copyrighted works are incorporated into model training.
For musicians, songwriters and publishers, the concern is that commercially valuable works could be reproduced or used to generate competing material without appropriate compensation.
AI developers, meanwhile, have argued in related proceedings that training models to identify patterns and relationships within information can constitute a transformative use of source material.
US courts are continuing to examine where the legal boundaries lie.
The Presley rights holders are seeking compensation and restrictions on the alleged unauthorised use of their compositions, but the filing itself does not establish liability.
The outcome could influence future licensing arrangements and the treatment of copyrighted musical works in artificial intelligence development.
For now, the lawsuit remains an unresolved legal challenge to Anthropic’s handling of copyrighted material during the development and operation of Claude.
