AI·CopyrightAnthropic reaches $1.5 Billion settlement with in landmark copyright caseBy Beatrice NolanBy Beatrice Nolan ReporterBeatrice Nolan ReporterBeatrice Nolan is a reporter on Fortune’s AI team, covering artificial intelligence and emerging nologies and their impact on work, industry, and culture.
She's based in Fortune's London office and holds a bachelor’s degree in English from the University of York.
You can reach her securely via Signal at beatricenolan.08SEE FULL BIO Anthropic has agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement with in a landmark copyright case.Anthropic has agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement with in a landmark copyright case, marking one of the first and largest legal payouts of the AI era.
The AI startup agreed to pay around $3,000 per book for roughly 500,000 works, after it was accused of downloading millions of pirated texts from shadow libraries to train its large language model, Claude.
As part of the deal, Anthropic will also destroy data it was accused of illegally acquiring.The fast-growing AI startup announced earlier this week that it had just raised an additional $13 billion in new venture capital funding in a deal that valued the company at $183 billion.
It has also said that it is currently on pace to generate at least $5 billion in revenues over the next 12 months.
The settlement amounts to nearly a third of that figure or more than a tenth of the new funding Anthropic just received.
While the settlement does not establish a legal precedent, experts said it will ly serve as an anchor figure for the amount other major AI companies will need to pay if they hope to settle similar copyright infringement lawsuits.
For instance, a number of are suing Meta for using their books without permission.
As part of that lawsuit, Meta was forced to disclose internal company s that suggest it knowingly used a library of pirated books called LibGen—which is one of the same libraries that Anthropic used.
OpenAI and its partner Microsoft are also facing a number of copyright infringement cases, including one filed by the Author’s Guild.
Aparna Sridhar, deputy general counsel at Anthropic, told Fortune in a statement: “In June, the District Court issued a landmark ruling on AI development and copyright law, finding that Anthropic’s apach to training AI models constitutes fair use.
Today’s settlement, if apved, will resolve the plaintiffs’ remaining legacy claims.
We remain committed to safe AI systems that help people and organizations extend their capabilities, advance scientific discovery, and solve complex blems.”A lawyer for the who sued Anthropic said the settlement would have far-reaching impacts.“This landmark settlement far surpasses any other known copyright recovery.
It is the first of its kind in the AI era.
It will vide meaningful compensation for each class work and sets a precedent requiring AI companies to pay copyright owners,” Justin Nelson, partner with Susman Godfrey LLP and co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel on Bartz et al.
v. Anthropic PBC, said in a statement.
“This settlement sends a powerful message to AI companies and creators a that taking copyrighted works from these pirate websites is wrong.” The case, which was originally set to go to trial in December, could have exposed Anthropic to damages of up to $1 trillion if the court found that the company willfully violated copyright law.
Santa Clara law fessor Ed Lee said could that if Anthropic lost the trial, it could have “at least the potential for -ending liability.” Anthropic essentially concurred with Lee’s conclusion, writing in a court filing that it felt “inordinate pressure” to settle the case given the size of the potential damages.
The jeopardy Anthropic faced hinged on the means it had used to obtain the copyrighted books, rather than the fact that they had used the books to train AI without the explicit permission of the copyright holders.
In July, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup, ruled that using copyrighted books to create an AI model constituted “fair use” for which no specific license was required.
But Alsup then focused on the allegation that Anthropic had used digital libraries of pirated books for at least some of the data it fed its AI models, rather than purchasing copies of the books legally.
The judge suggested in a decision allowing the case to go to trial that he was inclined to view this as copyright infringement no matter what Anthropic did with the pirated libraries.
By settling the case, Anthropic has sidestepped an existential risk to its . However, the settlement is significantly higher than some legal experts were predicting.
The motion is now seeking preliminary apval of what’s claimed to be “the largest publicly reported copyright recovery in history.” James Grimmelmann, a law fessor at Cornell Law School and Cornell , called it a “modest settlement.” “It doesn’t try to resolve all of the copyright issues around generative AI.
Instead, it’s focused on what Judge Alsup thought was the one egregiously wrongful thing that Anthropic did: download books in bulk from shadow libraries rather than buying copies and scanning them itself.
The payment is substantial, but not so big as to threaten Anthropic’s viability or competitive position,” he told Fortune.
He said that the settlement helps establish that AI companies need to acquire their training data legitimately, but does not answer other copyright questions facing AI companies, such as what they need to do to prevent their generative AI models from ducing outputs that infringe copyright.
In several cases still pending against AI companies—including a case The New York Times has filed against OpenAI and a case that movie studio Warner Brothers filed just this week against Midjourney, a firm that makes AI that can generate images and s—the copyright holders allege the AI models duced outputs that were identical or substantially similar to copyrighted works “The recent Warner Bros.
suit against Midjourney, for example, focuses on how Midjourney can be used to duce images of DC superheroes and other copyrighted characters,” Grimmelmann said.
While legal experts say the amount is manageable for a firm the size of Anthropic, Luke McDonagh, an associate fessor of law at LSE, said the case may have a down impact on smaller AI companies if it does set a precedent for similar claims.
“The figure of $1.5 billion, as the overall amount of the settlement, indicates the kind of level that could resolve some of the other AI copyright cases.
It could also point the way forward for licensing of copyright works for AI training,” he told Fortune.
“This kind of sum—$3,000 per work—is manageable for a firm valued as highly as Anthropic and the other large AI firms.
It may be less so for smaller firms.” A precedent for other AI firms Cecilia Ziniti, a lawyer and founder of legal AI company GC AI, said the settlement was a “Napster to iTunes” moment for AI.
“This settlement marks the beginning of a necessary evolution toward a legitimate, market-based licensing scheme for training data,” she said.
She added the settlement could mark the “start of a more mature, sustainable ecosystem where creators are compensated, much how the music industry adapted to digital distribution.” Ziniti also noted the size of the settlement may force the rest of the industry to get more serious licensing copyrighted works.
“The argument that it’s too difficult to track and pay for training data is a red herring because we have enough deals at this point to show it can be done,” she said, pointing to deals that news publications, including Axel Springer and Vox, have entered into with OpenAI.
“This settlement will push other AI companies to the negotiating table and accelerate the creation of a true marketplace for data, ly involving API authentications and revenue-sharing models.” Fortune Global Forum returns Oct.
26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of . Apply for an invitation.