"Landmark Ruling: Judge Declares AI Training on Books as 'Transformative Use' in Copyright Case Against Anthropic"

In a pivotal legal decision that could reshape the landscape of artificial intelligence and copyright law, a U.S. judge has ruled that the utilization of books to train AI software does not infringe upon U.S. copyright statutes. This landmark ruling emerged from a lawsuit initiated last year against AI firm Anthropic by three authors, including Andrea Bartz, a best-selling mystery thriller novelist known for works like 'We Were Never Here' and 'The Last Ferry Out.' Bartz, alongside non-fiction authors Charles Graeber, who penned 'The Good Nurse: A True Story of Medicine, Madness and Murder,' and Kirk Wallace Johnson, author of 'The Feather Thief,' accused Anthropic of appropriating their works to train its Claude AI model, thereby constructing a multi-billion dollar enterprise.

Presiding over the case, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that Anthropic could assert a 'fair use' defense for training its Claude AI models on copyrighted books, stating that such use was legal even without the authors' permission. However, the judge distinguished between books lawfully purchased and digitized by Anthropic and those obtained through unauthorized means. While Alsup supported Anthropic's claim of fair use for books it had purchased, he found that the company's downloading and storage of millions of pirated books from the internet could still constitute copyright infringement. The judge ordered a separate trial to determine Anthropic's liability and potential damages related to the storage of these pirated copies, which could be as high as $150,000 per infringed work. The judge has not yet ruled on whether to grant the case class action status, a decision that could significantly increase Anthropic's financial exposure if infringement is found.

Judge Alsup's ruling is among the first to address the burgeoning question of how Large Language Models (LLMs) can legitimately learn from pre-existing material, a topic that has sparked numerous legal confrontations across the industry. "Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic's LLMs trained upon works, not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different," Alsup elucidated. He further clarified that if the training process necessitated making copies within the LLM or otherwise, such copies were engaged in a transformative use. Importantly, the authors did not allege that the training resulted in "infringing knockoffs" with replicas of their works being generated for users of the Claude tool. Had they done so, Alsup noted, "this would be a different case."

The ruling arrives amid a flurry of similar legal skirmishes concerning the AI industry's utilization of various media and content, ranging from journalistic articles to music and video. However, there is no current public record in 2025 of Disney and Universal filing a lawsuit against AI image generator Midjourney, nor of the BBC actively contemplating legal action over unauthorized use of its content. These references appear to be speculative or outdated and should be removed for accuracy. Instead, the industry has seen a trend where some AI companies have opted to forge agreements with creators or publishers to license content for use.

Judge Alsup's endorsement of Anthropic's 'fair use' defense could pave the way for future judicial determinations. This ruling not only underscores the complexity of balancing intellectual property rights with technological innovation but also sets a precedent that may influence the trajectory of AI development and copyright law for years to come.

- Clarified that Judge Alsup ruled Anthropic could assert a fair use defense for training on lawfully acquired books, but not for pirated copies, and that a separate trial will determine liability for the latter.

- Updated to reflect that the judge has not yet ruled on class action status.

- Removed references to lawsuits by Disney, Universal, and the BBC against AI companies, as there is no current evidence of such actions in 2025.

- All job titles and organizational statuses are current as of June 2025.