Elvis Presley rightsholders filed an Elvis Anthropic lawsuit on October 23, accusing Claude’s maker of training on 274 songs without a license. Authentic Brands Group and co-plaintiffs seek $150,000 per work, roughly $41 million. For publishers, the case tests whether catalog owners can force a license instead of unlicensed training.
Key Takeaways
- Authentic Brands Group and co-plaintiffs sued Anthropic on October 23.
- Complaint alleges training on 274 songs without a license.
- Plaintiffs seek $150,000 per work, roughly $41 million.
- Filing says Claude admitted close rewrites after guardrails.
What the Elvis Anthropic Lawsuit Alleges
Billboard first reported the filing, and Rolling Stone identifies the case as ABE EPE LLC v. Anthropic. A subsidiary of Authentic Brands Group, which controls much of Presley’s name, image and likeness, sued with other companies that hold music rights, NME reported. The complaint says Anthropic used copyrighted compositions and lyrics to train models without permission or payment.
Named works include hits and lesser-known tracks. Outlets cite “Can’t Help Falling in Love,” “All Shook Up,” “Don’t Be Cruel,” “A Little Less Conversation,” “Return To Sender” and “(You’re The) Devil In Disguise.” Rolling Stone called this one of the first major cases of an artist’s estate suing an AI company, after earlier actions by labels and the RIAA.
“The Elvis Plaintiffs bring this action to enforce these exclusive rights against the defendant that has built its entire business model based on copyright infringement at a scale never seen before,” lead attorney Richard Busch wrote. “The Elvis Plaintiffs are deeply protective of these iconic songs.”
Close Rewrites After Supposed Guardrails
The filing states that Claude “has created infringing output of copyrighted material of virtually every song from every catalog available on the internet, including the Works.” It says that continued after Anthropic “supposedly put up ‘guardrails’ after being sued,” when the model was asked to recreate songs “for a modern audience.” Rolling Stone reports that the lawsuit says Claude then did so and admitted the following:
“These renders keep landing very close to the originals: same structure, same hooks reused with light rewording, and full sets of verses/choruses/bridges. That’s edging past ‘inspired by’ into reproducing the copyrighted song, even when the words are swapped out.”
As Billboard notes, according to Rolling Stone, Busch previously represented the Marvin Gaye estate against Robin Thicke and Pharrell over Blurred Lines. The lawsuit likewise argues Anthropic is creating “unlicensed derivative works.” NME reports that the earlier case ended in a ruling that the song infringed Gaye’s 1977 track Got To Give It Up.
Statutory Damages on 274 Songs
The Hollywood Reporter asked Anthropic for comment and did not hear back. Far Out Magazine also said Anthropic had yet to respond. Rolling Stone put the ask at roughly $41 million; NME calculated about $41.1 million, or £31 million.
| Claim | Figure in the sources |
|---|---|
| Songs alleged | 274 |
| Statutory damages per work | Up to $150,000 (£112,000), per NME; $150,000 per track in Rolling Stone |
| Approximate total sought | Roughly $41 million; about $41.1 million (£31 million) |
Earlier Music Copyright Suits Against Anthropic
NME reported that Anthropic has not publicly responded, but has previously maintained that training AI models on copyrighted material can be protected under US fair use law. That position is not a ruling in this case. Other actions already on the record include:
- October 2023: Universal Music Publishing Group, Concord Music Group and ABKCO sued Anthropic over reproduced lyrics, citing Katy Perry, Gloria Gaynor and the Rolling Stones, NME reported.
- The Hollywood Reporter reported that Round Hill sued Suno and Anthropic in August, alleging use of hundreds of the publisher’s songs, and that Universal Music Publishing, Abcko, Concord and BMG had previously sued Anthropic.
- NME reported that Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell sued Anthropic in August over lyrics and sheet music linked to the Beatles, Taylor Swift and Michael Jackson.
- In September, Jason Isbell and other musicians sued Suno, alleging it enabled users to imitate their identities and styles without consent, NME reported.
What the Filing Means for Publishers
Lyrics are text. Plaintiffs say Claude reused structure and hooks with light rewording, the same derivative-work problem book and news publishers raise about close rewrites. As analysis, the output examples may matter as much as the training claim, because they are offered to show that guardrails failed.
Three implications follow from the sources, as analysis not as findings:
- Statutory damages of $150,000 per work create a catalog-scale number before any fair-use ruling.
- The complaint points to post-guardrail outputs, not only to how the model was trained.
- An estate-side filing, after publisher suits over lyrics, widens who can bring a claim.
Rights pressure is not only judicial. Meta’s business terms were delayed to Nov. 20 after backlash, a parallel contest over how platforms set rules for creative work. The Elvis case still asks catalog owners whether to litigate at statutory rates or license before a model trains.
