PayAuthorscom

News

AI copyright news, graded by source

Court rulings, company filings and allegations in the copyright cases against AI companies and pirate libraries, over books, articles, music, images, video and code. Checked for new filings every three hours; items are posted after review, so some appear later. Get these by e-mail · Court filings, free to read

Each item is graded by its source: a court’s ruling or order; a company’s own filing about itself; a defendant’s filing arguing its side; a plaintiffs’ filing; the claims in a complaint (allegation); or press reporting.

What the labels mean

Get these updates by e-mail

For all news.

How the e-mails work

Uses the cases, search, kind and company you set above (not the month or sort). As we post means within about 15 minutes of a new item; digests go out in the morning, U.S. Central time, weekly on Mondays, and only when something new matches. Updates start right away, and every e-mail has a one-click unsubscribe. If you tick Catch me up, the earlier items that match also come two a day, oldest first, each morning until you are up to date; you can stop that alone from any e-mail. Someone you invite gets one e-mail asking them to accept, and nothing more unless they do; we don’t tell them who invited them. Privacy.

Company filingApril 20, 2026Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC (Concord I) · N.D. Cal., No. 5:24-cv-03811 (Judge Eumi K. Lee)

Anthropic asks for summary judgment against the music publishers, saying training Claude on lyrics is fair use and that users, not Anthropic, cause any lyric outputs

In its April 20, 2026 cross-motion (Dkt. 686, corrected Dkt. 693; public refiling Sept. 22, 2026 as Dkt. 842), Anthropic says it trained Claude on the lyrics along with billions of other copyrighted works and that this is transformative fair use, citing the Bartz and Kadrey rulings. It says lyrics were swept up in web text, that the publishers cannot claim a training-license market, and that UMG told investors in March 2026 it saw "no indication that AI royalty dilution is a material issue." On outputs, Anthropic argues the person who prompts Claude is the direct infringer, that many outputs the publishers flag were prompted by the publishers' own agents, and that it has long used and later strengthened guardrails against reproducing lyrics. It says the publishers dropped their contributory and vicarious claims the night before its brief and seeks judgment on them, and argues the DMCA claim fails because no removal of copyright management information was shown. These are Anthropic's arguments; the court has not ruled.

Anthropic motion for summary judgment and opposition, public refiling (Dkt. 842, PDF) ↗

Loading the rest of the news…

What the labels mean

Every item says what kind of source it rests on. A court ruling or order is the court's own statement. A company filing is what a defendant says about itself. A government filing is a statement by a government agency that is not a party to the case, such as a statement of interest; it is the government's position, not a ruling. An allegation is what a complaint or motion claims and has not been decided. Reported means press reporting we have not confirmed from the primary document. Summaries are our own; follow the links for the source.

This page is general information, not legal advice. An allegation is not a finding. Whether any of this matters for a particular work or claim is a question for a lawyer.