AI and Copyright
By Justin Sorrell — PartnerAI AND COPYRIGHT – NEW CASE HELPS DEFINE FAIR USE OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS IN AI CONTEXT
If you have already dabbled with artificial intelligence services such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok, you are likely aware of AI’s potent capabilities. And if you own intellectual property, such as a copyright, you may also be aware of one of AI’s potential downsides: the way in which some AI services use copyrighted materials to train their large language models (“LLM”).
LLM AI services like ChatGPT and Claude use a “generative pre-trained transformer” model. These AI services rely on LLMs that are pre-trained on massive amounts of information, such as pre-existing text and images. The AI services then use their neural network architecture to understand the context and relationships of the pieces of information in their libraries to produce entirely new text, images, and other deliverables.
2024 Copyright Infringement Case Filed
In August of 2024, a group of authors sued Anthropic, the owner of LLM AI service Claude, alleging Anthropic had infringed on the authors’ federal copyrights by using their works to train its LLMs, such as Claude, including by using legitimately purchased copies of their works, as well as unauthorized (“pirated”) copies. Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC, 3:24-cv-05417-WHA (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2024). Anthropic filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the Court to determine its uses of the authors’ works did not infringe on their copyrights because it amounted to “fair use” under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.
June 2025 Court Order Issued
On June 23, 2025, the Court issued an Order on Anthropic’s fair use defense, which can be summarized as follows:
- Anthropic’s use of the authors’ books to train Anthropic’s LLMs was “exceedingly transformative” and was a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.
- Anthropic’s digitization of the authors’ books Anthropic had previously purchased in print form was a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act because Anthropic simply replaced its print copies with more convenient digital copies, without adding or redistributing copies, or creating new works.
- Anthropic’s use of pirated copies of the authors’ books for Anthropic’s central library of training materials was not a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.
This landmark ruling provides the first judicial guidance on an issue of key importance to the AI industry: the extent to which AI services may use copyrighted works to train LLMs without explicit agreement from the works’ owners.
But this is likely not the end of the story, because there is no word yet on whether the authors will appeal the ruling. And, while AI services now may have some legal basis to train their LLMs, Anthropic still must face the authors’ claims relating to Anthropic’s use of pirated books. The outcome of these claims could still have major implications for AI services and copyright holders alike.
With the evolution of LLM AI models and their ease of use, there will be many more concerns about their use in the future. If you have questions about intellectual property law, including copyright, and artificial intelligence, the attorneys of Riley Bennett Egloff are available to assist you.
Justin Sorrell – Attorney at Law
Justin is a problem-solver who seeks creative solutions to his clients’ legal issues while understanding and advising his clients of the business impact of litigation and transaction choices to help guide his clients’ decision-making. Justin has served as outside corporate counsel, including handling bank loan transactions, real estate transactions, and commercial leases, and loan work-outs and bankruptcy matters.
When disputes arise and an amicable resolution is not possible, Justin is an experienced litigator who aggressively and diligently pursues his clients’ interests in many types of disputes in federal and state courts across Indiana. He often represents businesses and employers in lawsuits including wage and retaliation claims, trade secret and confidentiality claims, non-competition and non-solicitation covenants, breach of contract claims, collections, and appeals. Justin also defends health-care providers against licensing complaints, including against consumer complaints and administrative complaints brought by the Office of the Attorney General. He has helped numerous clients amicably resolve contentious disputes, saving them and their businesses significant time and money.
© Riley Bennett Egloff LLP
Disclaimer: Article is made available for educational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. If you have questions about any matters in this article, please contact the author directly.
Permissions: You are permitted to reproduce this material in any format, provided that you do not alter the content in any way and do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: “By Justin O. Sorrell & Donald S. Smith © Riley Bennett Egloff LLP — Indianapolis, Indiana. www.rbelaw.com”
Posted on June 25, 2025 by Justin O. Sorrell