Landmark Ruling in Anthropic v. Book Authors (June 24, 2025)
In a major copyright dispute, U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued a mixed ruling regarding Anthropic’s AI training practices using copyrighted books.
✅ What the Court Ruled Allowed (Fair Use)
- Training Claude on books—whether from pirated sources or legally purchased copies—is exceedingly transformative and falls under “fair use.”
- Alsup likened AI training to a human writer learning by reading—absorbing and recombining content in new ways. Consequently, the AI’s transformative use during training is protected.
- Digitizing lawfully purchased print books into searchable digital formats was also deemed fair use, viewed as a space-efficient, transformative format shift.
❌ What the Court Found Infringing (Not Fair Use)
- Anthropic’s creation and retention of a “central library” comprising over 7 million pirated books was ruled infringing and unlawful, warranting a trial to determine damages.
- Importantly, paying for physical copies after unauthorized download doesn’t absolve the initial piracy.
Why This Matters?
1. Key Precedent on AI Fair Use
This is the first U.S. ruling agreeing that training LLMs on copyrighted texts can qualify as fair use—setting a high-water mark for AI developers.
2. Piracy Is Still Copyright Theft
The ruling clarifies that predatory acquisition—like bulk-piracy—is not shielded by fair use. Anthropic must now go through trial to face fines, which could be as much as $150,000 per work.
3. The Authors’ Perspective
The Authors Guild blasted the decision, claiming it overlooks harms to authors’ market and transformative content rights—particularly around digital scanning and large-scale unauthorized use.
4. Trials, Appeals & Industry Impacts
- A trial in December 2025 will settle liability for pirated copying and damages.
- Expect appeals—especially contesting the broad fair-use interpretation of AI training and digital scanning.
- Future rulings in parallel suits (e.g., Meta, OpenAI) will likely reference this case. A recent Meta hearing highlighted judicial concern over AI-generated works displacing original content.
Final Take
This split verdict offers legal clarity and caution: companies can transform but must avoid piracy at all costs and should negotiate licenses to stay out of litigation.
