A Warning Sign for Managers: New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Anthropic
Summary
- Personal liability of managers and officers takes center stage: The new lawsuit targets not only Anthropic but also its founders, based on allegations of their direct involvement in the alleged copyright infringements. The lawsuit illustrates that conducting AI activities through a corporation does not necessarily eliminate the personal exposure of those who make decisions, approve processes, or oversee them.
- The plaintiffs allege that Anthropic obtained and used copyrighted musical works without authorization to train and operate its Claude AI models. The lawsuit reflects the growing tension between the rapid development of AI systems and the obligation to ensure that the content and data used for AI training, development, and output are lawfully licensed.
- The potential exposure is not merely legal, but also financial and operational, given the claim for damages in amounts that may be highly significant. Such relief may materially affect Anthropic’s operations, products, and risk-management framework.
- Companies and their management teams should maintain controls throughout the content and data-use chain, including over content and data sources, licensing terms, engagements with AI providers, indemnity mechanisms, output filtering, and documentation. An effective compliance policy is not merely a technological matter, but a critical management tool for protecting the company and its officers.
A lawsuit was recently filed against Anthropic and its founders by Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music, two of the world’s largest music publishing companies, together with other music publishers. The lawsuit alleges the unauthorized use of copyrighted musical works to develop, train, and operate Anthropic’s Claude AI models, among the world’s leading AI platforms.
The lawsuit also names Anthropic’s CEO and co-founder as a defendant, alleging his direct involvement in the claimed copyright infringements. This reflects the opening of a direct legal front against officers of AI companies, including those at some of the world’s leading companies in the field.
Lawsuit Against Anthropic: Tension Between AI Training and Copyright Protection
According to the complaint, Anthropic obtained pirated copies of copyrighted works on a large scale by downloading them from torrent platforms, and also scraped and downloaded information, files, and other documents from third-party databases. The complaint further alleges that these works were used to train the Claude model, which in some cases can generate song lyrics identical or very similar to the original lyrics.
The lawsuit may expose Anthropic to billions of dollars in liability and highlights the tension between technological development and copyright protection, with particular emphasis on the potential personal liability of officers at companies developing AI systems.
Personal Liability of Officers and Founders?
Unlike in prior cases, the content companies took the additional and significant step of naming two of Anthropic’s founders—Dr. Dario Amodei, Anthropic’s CEO, and Benjamin Mann—as individual defendants. The complaint alleges that they are personally liable for the alleged infringements.
The plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief, disclosure of information concerning the training data, and destruction of infringing copies. They also seek statutory damages of up to USD 150,000 for each work found to have been willfully infringed, as well as up to USD 25,000 for each alleged infringement involving the removal or alteration of copyright management information. Given the volume of works at issue, the potential exposure could reach billions of dollars. A few months ago, Anthropic settled another lawsuit based on similar allegations and agreed to pay approximately USD 1.5 billion, reportedly the largest settlement in the history of copyright litigation in the United States.
Direct legal action against officers is also recognized under Israeli intellectual property law. As we recently reported, the Tel Aviv District Court held that the Israeli company Don Gili Ltd. was liable for infringing the well-known Beverly Hills Polo Club trademark, and that the company’s managers also bore personal liability because they were personally involved in the infringing conduct. Accordingly, the lawsuit filed by Sony Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music, and the other plaintiffs represents a further step in the determined and uncompromising battle waged by content companies against AI platforms.
The Message to Managers, Officers, and Directors
Even where AI activities are conducted through a corporation, personal legal exposure may arise where direct involvement is alleged in decision-making, in the conduct itself, or in supervising activities that may be considered infringing.
Incorporation does not necessarily provide a complete layer of protection where personal participation in, or assistance with, the infringing conduct is alleged.
What Should Companies and Management Teams Learn from This?
- Conduct an in-depth review of the entire content-use chain. The review should address not only whether AI platforms generate outputs that may be considered infringing, but also the sources of the training data, licensing terms, data-collection practices, internal documentation, and the company’s ability to demonstrate that it has implemented reasonable control measures.
- Management and officers cannot treat copyright risks as matters for the technology team or an external provider alone. Decisions regarding information sources, data-acquisition policies, the use of third-party databases, complaint management, and the operation of filtering mechanisms are management decisions with direct legal significance.
- Engagements with AI providers should involve a practical assessment, rather than relying solely on general representations of legal compliance. This assessment should cover the sources of content and data, the scope of contractual commitments and licenses, indemnity mechanisms, policies governing the use of information supplied by customers, output-filtering capabilities, audit mechanisms, and an appropriate level of transparency.
- Implement an effective AI compliance policy, including mapping AI uses, defining rules for content that must not be entered into AI systems, establishing an approval process for sensitive uses, testing high-risk outputs, documenting decisions, and preparing a rapid-response procedure for copyright infringement allegations.
The lawsuit against Anthropic demonstrates that, in the AI era, copyright is not solely a legal issue for the company itself. It may also give rise to direct personal liability for officers who make decisions, approve processes, or disregard warning signs. Responsible, authorized, and documented use of content and data is not merely a compliance requirement but a critical component of protecting the company and its management.
***
Dr. Avishay Klein is a partner and the head of the firm’s Privacy, Cyber and AI Department.
Dr. Ran Karmi is an associate in the firm’s Antitrust and Competition Department.
Barnea Jaffa Lande’s Privacy, Cyber and AI Department is one of Israel’s most prominent and leading practices. It provides innovative and comprehensive legal counsel to technology companies, institutional entities, companies, and corporations operating across a range of sectors in Israel and abroad. The department specializes in the practical implementation of Israeli privacy law, with a focus on each client’s specific business needs, the identification of unique legal exposures, and the development of tailored privacy programs.