100+ Authors Sue Anthropic for $75M Over Copyright Infringement
In brief
- Over 100 authors sued Anthropic for $75M in alleged copyright infringement damages.
- Shakespeare v. Anthropic alleges Anthropic sourced works from piracy networks like LibGen and BitTorrent to train Claude.
- The lawsuit targets data sourcing practices rather than fair-use doctrine itself.
The allegations
The plaintiffs allege that Anthropic downloaded their works from sources like LibGen and BitTorrent, which operate as shadow libraries and peer-to-peer piracy networks. This distinction matters. A company can potentially defend AI training under fair use. Defending the acquisition of training materials through piracy networks is a much harder sell in court.
The lawsuit, titled Shakespeare v. Anthropic, represents a new legal front that focuses not on whether AI training constitutes fair use, but on how the training data was obtained. That's a narrower claim—and potentially a stronger one.
Prior settlement and opt-outs
The plaintiffs in this case are primarily authors who opted out of a previous settlement in the Bartz v. Anthropic case. That earlier action resulted in a proposed $1.5 billion settlement covering approximately 480,000 works, with preliminary approval granted in 2025. Authors who stayed in that settlement stood to receive roughly $3,000 to $3,100 per work after legal fees. Claims were filed for over 90% of eligible works.
Yet more than 100 authors decided the Bartz settlement wasn't enough. They walked away and filed Shakespeare instead. That signals confidence in a different legal theory—or dissatisfaction with the payouts on offer.
Broader context
Music publishers, visual artists, and news organizations have all filed suits against various AI firms for copyright infringement. The Shakespeare case is one piece of a widening legal landscape. Anthropic, which has raised billions in funding and counts Amazon as a major backer, now faces pressure on multiple fronts. Settling one case for $1.5 billion only to face another for $75 million from authors who thought the first settlement was insufficient indicates a pattern that investors and partners will be watching closely.
