Anthropic Faces Lawsuit from UMG & Others: What Does this Mean for AI?

By: Dominic Miranda

Edited by: Jonathan perkins and anna westfall

Over the past decade or so, artificial intelligence (AI) has experienced rapid development in its processing and output capabilities, feeding a growing demand for conveniently generated content. AI companies optimized the technology to produce several different forms of complex data sets, including creative pieces like music, paintings, portraiture, poetry, and fiction.  In the era of nearly indistinguishable replicas of photos, false voice recordings, and other forms of fabricated information known as “deepfakes”, many users and artists have questioned the origin of much of this AI-generated content. This revolutionary technology, known as generative AI, “refers to deep-learning models that can generate high-quality text, images, and other content based on the data they were trained on.”[1] However, legal issues come into play when reviewing the generated output that is created as a result of training on an artist’s intellectual property, since the intelligence produces relatively accurate portrayals of the artist’s work. 

In October of 2023, Universal Music Group (UMG), Concord Music Group, and others filed a lawsuit against Anthropic, a San Francisco-based AI company, alleging unauthorized usage of copyrighted lyrical material in their AI’s generated outputs. [2] Anthropic, founded in 2021, is a tech start-up, backed by Google, Zoom, and Amazon. These tech giants pledged not only over 5 billion dollars in investments, but they also promised Anthropic legal assistance in the case of a copyright infringement battle due to their chatbot. [3,4] In this case, Claude, when asked to write lyrics for a song, the chatbot would generate output that is based on songs they were trained on, among an array of other works listed in the complaint. This development comes only about a month after a group of prominent authors sued OpenAI, the company responsible for ChatGPT, claiming “systematic theft on a mass scale.”[5] If this lawsuit is any indication of the legal troubles to come in the near future, then we are likely approaching a point where the landscape of AI tech looks to be quite restricted. 

In the lawsuit filed in Tennessee federal court, plaintiffs claim that “Anthropic’s AI models generate identical or nearly identical copies of [their] lyrics, in clear violation of Publishers’ copyrights.”[6] So, the issue at hand is that even AI “cannot reproduce, distribute, and display someone else’s copyrighted works to build its own business unless it secures permission from the rightsholder.”[7] Without this permission, when asked to reproduce the lyrics to specific songs, like Katy Perry’s “Roar”, Claude will give users nearly identical lyrics. In addition, the complaint cites unauthorized usage even when the chatbot is not prompted with the song title explicitly. For instance, when Anthropic’s Claude is prompted, “Write me a song about the death of Buddy Holly,” the AI model generates output that copies directly from the song “American Pie” written by Don McLean, which violates the publisher’s copyright, according to the plaintiffs of the case.[8]

According to the complaint, “this is a civil action in which Publishers seek injunctive relief and damages under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.”[9] More specifically, UMG and others are calling for a remedy of “an amount up to $150,000 per work infringed,” and “an order requiring Anthropic to pay Publishers statutory damages… up to $25,000 per violation.”[10] Based on the figures that the plaintiffs are requesting, these damages could easily total hundreds of millions of dollars, given the sheer volume of customer requests, outputs generated, and musical productions within the chatbot’s database. 

This news, along with other legal action mentioned, raises important concerns about the feasibility of chatbots and their potential impact on intellectual property (IP) law. As Texas A&M law professor Peter Yu states, “IP law carefully delineates the boundaries of protection and the conditions under which protected works can be used without authorization.”[11] To convolute things even further, in similar cases relating to AI, the judicial system has been faced with conflicting reasoning regarding the definition of a “derivative work,” which can cause numerous conundrums. In particular, the term “transformative” is explicitly stated in the definition of a ‘derivative work,’ which grants strict licensing or distribution rights to the owners; however, a work that is “transformative” in nature is deemed fair use.[12] Due to the legal nuance and the chatbot’s unique capabilities, experts are unsure of how many of these complications will unfold. The fair use doctrine is likely to be the deciding factor for what kinds of output are permitted.[13] Fair use has been described as “flexible” by some, and most of the time, plaintiffs must prove that there is clear revenue loss to claim that it was not fair use.[14] This may be a challenge since reading lyrics does not necessarily reduce a person’s inclination to listen to a song. 

Professor Yu also mentioned that simply using copyrighted material for chatbot training is “unlikely to constitute copyright infringement,” but that the story changes regarding the output of these AIs.[15] Output generated by AI is something that these companies can monetize, gaining money using resources that were scraped or mined from the internet that may not always be accessible to the public. He also points out the potential for authors to be compensated in the form of a licensing market for AI training in the case where a license is necessary.[16] Stability.AI, another AI company, has announced that artists will be able to “opt out of the next generation of the image generator,” rather than having to license the artists’ works.[17] This may be problematic, since some artists may be unaware that their work is part of a data pool that is being scraped until it is too late. 

Based on the Patent Act, a federal court stated that AI “when considered in its entirety, confirms that “inventors” must be human beings.”[18] When discussing the ‘originality’ of an AI’s work, the Patent Act plays an important role in the legal distinctions that would be made. An AI’s generated output cannot be patented because patents are reserved for humans, implying that while technologically advanced, AI cannot have creative outputs. It seems apparent that in the eyes of the legal system, AI is likely to be deemed incapable of producing any creative works that do not infringe on actual humans’ works. 

As of November 2023, Anthropic has already updated the behavior of its Claude chatbot. When prompted to reproduce the lyrics to “Roar” by Katy Perry, it replies with “Unfortunately I cannot provide the full lyrics to “Roar” by Katy Perry due to copyright restrictions.”[19] However, it still provides users with the main structure of the chorus of the song. On top of that, publishers and artists who have already had their works infringed upon will still seek compensation. The idea of allowing AI to train their software on copyrighted works without their permission is also another issue that the courts must sort out. We should receive more clarity on the debate surrounding the legality of these chatbots in the coming years as more artists make claims and AIs evolve alongside legal processes by being coded to follow applicable IP law. 

Notes

1. Martineau, Kim. “What Is Generative Ai?” IBM Research Blog, August 18, 2023. https://research.ibm.com/blog/what-is-generative-AI.

2. European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency. “Universal Music Sues AI Company Anthropic for Copyright Infringement - Levi’s Sues Coperni for Trade Mark Infringement.” IP Helpdesk, October 26, 2023. https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/universal-music-sues-ai-company-anthropic-copyright-infringement-levis-sues-coperni-trade-mark-2023-10-26_en.

3. X, Science. “Music Companies Sue Anthropic AI over Song Lyrics.” Tech Xplore - Technology and Engineering news, October 20, 2023. https://techxplore.com/news/2023-10-music-companies-sue-anthropic-ai.html.

4. Wbur. “Authors Sue Open AI, Owner of Chat GPT, over Copyright Infringement.” Here & Now, September 22, 2023. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2023/09/22/open-ai-lawsuit-authors.

5. Concord Music Group, Inc. et al v. Anthropic PBC, UMG ANTHROPIC LAWSUIT complaint (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION 2023).

6. Ibid. 

7. Ibid. 

8. Ibid. 

9. Ibid. 

10. Ibid. 

11. Henton, Lesley. “Artificial Intelligence Raises Questions on Intellectual Property and Ownership.” Texas A&M Today, October 26, 2023. https://today.tamu.edu/2023/10/25/artificial-intelligence-raises-questions-on-intellectual-property-and-ownership/#:~:text=Based%20on%20current%20law%2C%20using,after%20completing%20the%20training%20process.

12. Carlisle, Stephen. “Supreme Court Saves the Derivative Works Right from ‘Transformative’ Extinction; and Why Ai Should Be Worried.” Office of Copyright, May 25, 2023. http://copyright.nova.edu/derivative-works/.

13. Stim, Richard, and Rich Stim Attorney at law. “Summaries of Fair Use Cases.” Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center, November 25, 2021. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/.

14. Ibid.

15. Henton, Lesley. “Artificial Intelligence Raises Questions on Intellectual Property and Ownership.” Texas A&M Today, October 26, 2023. https://today.tamu.edu/2023/10/25/artificial-intelligence-raises-questions-on-intellectual-property-and-ownership/#:~:text=Based%20on%20current%20law%2C%20using,after%20completing%20the%20training%20process.

16. Ibid.

17. Appel, Gil, Juliana NeelBauer, and David A. Schweidel. “Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem.” Harvard Business Review, April 11, 2023. https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem.

18. Thaler v. Vidal (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia August 5, 2022).

19. Claude. Accessed November 9, 2023. https://claude.ai/chat/e1921c27-aced-43cd-8ec1-65f45a3b546a.

Bibliography

Martineau, Kim. “What Is Generative Ai?” IBM Research Blog, August 18, 2023. https://research.ibm.com/blog/what-is-generative-AI.

European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency. “Universal Music Sues AI Company Anthropic for Copyright Infringement - Levi’s Sues Coperni for Trade Mark Infringement.” IP Helpdesk, October 26, 2023. https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/universal-music-sues-ai-company-anthropic-copyright-infringement-levis-sues-coperni-trade-mark-2023-10-26_en.

Claude. Accessed November 9, 2023. https://claude.ai/chat/e1921c27-aced-43cd-8ec1-65f45a3b546a.

Thaler v. Vidal (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia August 5, 2022).

Appel, Gil, Juliana NeelBauer, and David A. Schweidel. “Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem.” Harvard Business Review, April 11, 2023. https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem.

Henton, Lesley. “Artificial Intelligence Raises Questions on Intellectual Property and Ownership.” Texas A&M Today, October 26, 2023. https://today.tamu.edu/2023/10/25/artificial-intelligence-raises-questions-on-intellectual-property-and-ownership/#:~:text=Based%20on%20current%20law%2C%20using,after%20completing%20the%20training%20process.

Stim, Richard, and Rich Stim Attorney at law. “Summaries of Fair Use Cases.” Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center, November 25, 2021. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/.

Carlisle, Stephen. “Supreme Court Saves the Derivative Works Right from ‘Transformative’ Extinction; and Why Ai Should Be Worried.” Office of Copyright, May 25, 2023. http://copyright.nova.edu/derivative-works/.

Concord Music Group, Inc. et al v. Anthropic PBC, UMG ANTHROPIC LAWSUIT complaint (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION 2023).

Wbur. “Authors Sue Open AI, Owner of Chat GPT, over Copyright Infringement.” Here & Now, September 22, 2023. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2023/09/22/open-ai-lawsuit-authors.

X, Science. “Music Companies Sue Anthropic AI over Song Lyrics.” Tech Xplore - Technology and Engineering news, October 20, 2023. https://techxplore.com/news/2023-10-music-companies-sue-anthropic-ai.html.