Anthropic’s $1.5B copyright settlement is getting messy as judge delays approval; Ars Technica, May 15, 2026

 ASHLEY BELANGER  , Ars Technica; Anthropic’s $1.5B copyright settlement is getting messy as judge delays approval

"After several authors and class members raised objections to Anthropic’s $1.5 billion settlement over its widespread book piracy to train AI, a federal judge has delayed final approvals of the settlement.

On Thursday, US District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin declined to rubber-stamp what’s regarded as the largest copyright settlement in US history. Instead, she wanted to better understand why some class members were objecting and opting out of the settlement. So, she asked authors to address key concerns of objectors, who argued that lawyers’ compensation was way too high and payments to class members were a “pittance.”...

Objectors may not win every fight, but they have seemingly persuaded the court to at least entertain their strongly worded pleas, including warnings that the settlement may not survive an appeal if the terms aren’t re-examined. Notably, their objections came shortly before a group of 25 class members opting out of the settlement filed a new lawsuit, showing that Anthropic is not done fighting these claims.

“For the Court to agree that counsel’s request of nearly a third of a billion dollars, while individual plaintiffs settle for a pittance of available compensation and no protections against future abuse is an aberration of civil justice and a slap in the face to all those who labored to publish their works,” Story said. “Such a decision would also further the too-often-observed stereotype that … class-action Plaintiffs are merely tools used to obtain Powerball-size payouts to attorneys.”

Judge William Alsup, who initially approved the settlement but has since retired, also questioned whether the lawyers’ fees were too high. Worried that the settlement was being “shoved down the throat of authors,” he recommended an independent investigation to ensure no improper attorneys’ fees would be granted, but according to Lea Bishop, a non-class member objector and professor of copyright law, the recommendation “was not squarely disclosed to incoming Judge Martinez-Olguin” in a status report submitted by authors’ lawyers. Additionally, class members weren’t notified of the investigation.

Authors must respond to objections raised by May 21, when Anthropic will also have to file a brief explaining “why late opt outs should not be honored,” the judge ordered."

Authors, publishers near final approval of $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright settlement; Courthouse News Service, May 14, 2026

 MARGARET ATTRIDGE  , Courthouse News Service; Authors, publishers near final approval of $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright settlement

"Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, a Joe Biden appointee, allowed objectors to address the court, where several spoke about the concerns they had with how the plaintiffs put together the eligible works list.

One class member told the judge that the works list undercounts the number of eligible works in the class by treating each copyright registration number as a single work, regardless of how many books are covered by the registration. The class member explained that she has certain group copyright registration numbers that include 40 separate, independently published novels under one registration number, all of which were downloaded by Anthropic without permission. However, under the current terms of the settlement agreement, the novels would be considered just one claimable work.

Another class member spoke to the exclusion of works that were published under a pseudonym, disadvantageous to small publishers and self-published authors in the class, while a third said they believed a one-time payment was not enough because Anthropic was continuing to profit off the copyrighted work they stole.

James H. Bartolomei III of Duncan Firm, an attorney representing four other objectors, asked the court to reopen the opt-out period as certain key documents from the case were only uploaded to the settlement website recently.

“Nothing I am asking for takes a dollar away from any class member who filed a claim. I’m not asking the court to stop the settlement from ever being approved. Just for sufficient information to make an informed choice,” he said."

Meta’s AI Copyright Fight Just Escalated and Hollywood Is Watching Closely; Los Angeles Magazine, May 7, 2026

 DEVON JAMES , Los Angeles Magazine; Meta’s AI Copyright Fight Just Escalated and Hollywood Is Watching Closely

A new lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg and Meta could reshape how studios, publishers and tech companies train the next generation of artificial intelligence

"The AI Gold Rush Is Running Into Copyright Law

According to the lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court, Meta allegedly pulled material from massive libraries of pirated books and scraped internet content to train Llama, the company’s flagship large language model. Publishers argue the practice amounts to one of the largest copyright violations in modern history."

Mark Zuckerberg ‘personally authorized’ Meta’s copyright infringement, publishers allege; AP, May 5, 2026

 HILLEL ITALIE , AP; Mark Zuckerberg ‘personally authorized’ Meta’s copyright infringement, publishers allege

"The plaintiffs allege that Zuckerberg and Meta “followed their well-known motto ‘move fast and break things’” by illegally drawing upon a massive trove of books and journal articles for Llama."

Anthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque mess; Vox, May 6, 2026

 Constance Grady, Vox ; Anthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque mess

Scott Turow's latest real-life legal thriller: Suing Meta for copyright infringement; NPR, May 5, 2026

 Chloe Veltman, NPR ; Scott Turow's latest real-life legal thriller: Suing Meta for copyright infringement

""All Americans should understand that the bold future promised by A.I., has been, to paraphrase the investigative writer Alex Reisner, created with stolen words," said Turow in a statement to NPR. "It is all the more shameful that these violations of the law were undertaken by one of the richest corporations in the world."

According to the complaint, Meta "briefly considered licensing deals with major publishers" but changed its strategy in April 2023. The question of whether to license or pirate moving forward was "escalated" to Zuckerberg, after which, the complaint alleges, Meta's business development team received verbal instructions to stop licensing efforts. "If we license once [sic] single book, we won't be able to lean into the fair use strategy," a Meta employee is quoted as saying in the complaint.

"It's the most flagrant copyright breach in history," said Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger in a statement to NPR. "And these voracious tech companies need to be held accountable.""

Publishers sue Meta, claiming it violated copyrights in training AI with their books; The Washington Post, May 5, 2026

 Maegan Vazquez, The Washington Post; Publishers sue Meta, claiming it violated copyrights in training AI with their books

"The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is the latest in a string of lawsuits brought by publishers, authors, artists, photographers and news outlets aimed at forcing tech companies to compensate them for using their works to train their AI models. The plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit that the AI model’s ability to quickly produce knockoffs and summaries of copyrighted books threatens the livelihoods of publishers and authors.

A Meta spokesperson said in a statement that the company would “fight this lawsuit aggressively.”

“AI is powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and courts have rightly found that training AI on copyrighted material can qualify as fair use,” the spokesperson said.

The publishers’ complaint states Meta distributed millions of copyrighted works without authorization and without compensating authors or publishers, claiming that Zuckerberg “personally authorized and actively encouraged the infringement.” They also claim that Meta removed copyright notices and copyright management information from the works used to train the AI model, known as Llama."

Even More Authors, Publishers Sue Meta Over Copyright in AI Training: What's Different Now; CNET, May 5, 2026

 Katelyn Chedraoui , CNET; Even More Authors, Publishers Sue Meta Over Copyright in AI Training: What's Different Now

Meta won a previous AI lawsuit brought by authors. Publishers are taking a different route this time.

"New lawsuit, same questions

Copyright is one of the most contentious legal issues around AI. Tech companies like Meta need high-quality, human-created data to build and refine their AI models. Nearly all of this material is protected by copyright. That means tech companies have to enter into licensing agreements or defend their use of the content as fair use under a provision of copyright law.

Meta and Anthropic have both won previous cases in lawsuits brought by authors, successfully defending their fair use. Anthropic agreed to settle some piracy claims with authors for $1.5 billion, or about $3,000 per pirated work. Both judges warned in their decisions that this won't be the result in every lawsuit...

One of the biggest considerations in these cases is whether tech companies' use of copyrighted books will make it harder for human authors to sell their work or otherwise affect the marketplace."

Major publishers sued Meta for pirating millions of books to train its AI; Quartz, May 5, 2026

Cris Tolomia, Quartz; Major publishers sued Meta for pirating millions of books to train its AI

"Five major publishers and best-selling novelist Scott Turow filed a class-action copyright infringement lawsuit against Meta$META -1.49% and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday, alleging the company pirated millions of books and journal articles to train its Llama artificial intelligence models."

Anthropic Settlement Hearing Comes into Focus; Publishers Weekly, April 20, 2026

 Jim Milliot , Publishers Weekly ; Anthropic Settlement Hearing Comes into Focus

"With the May 14 Bartz v. Anthropic settlement fairness hearing drawing closer, both the Authors Guild and Authors Alliance have issued updates on where the $1.5 billion copyright infringement agreement stands....

The Guild noted that with the higher claim rate, the payout per work will be closer to the $3,000 per work estimated in the lawsuit rather than the $4,876 payout that was based on the number of works claimed in March...

The Authors Alliance update focused on the various objections that have been made about the settlement and which are likely to be raised in the settlement hearing. The objections were unsealed following a motion filed by professor Lea Victoria Bishop.

Among the objections are the claims that the distribution plan systematically favors publishers over authors; that the class notice was “misleading/coercive,” since statutory damages per infringement can technically be up to $150,000/work which would make the settlement amount per work is inadequate; and that the settlement sets a “dangerous precedent” by permitting “a multi-billion dollar AI company to ‘buy’ its way out of massive piracy for a ‘discounted’ rate.”

Judge Martínez-Olguín, who took over the case following the retirement of Judge William Alsup, will oversee the May 14 hearing set for 2 p.m. in the San Francisco Federal Courthouse. A Zoom link will be available for those who cannot make the trip to San Francisco."

Thousands of authors seek share of Anthropic copyright settlement; Reuters, April 17, 2026

 Blake Brittain , Reuters; Thousands of authors seek share of Anthropic copyright settlement

"Nearly 120,000 authors and other copyright holders are seeking a share of a $1.5 billion class-action settlement with Anthropic over the company's unauthorized use of their books in artificial-intelligence training, according to a ​filing in California federal court.

Claims have been filed for 91% of the more than 480,000 ‌works covered by the settlement, according to a court filing  in the case on Thursday.

A judge will consider whether to grant final approval to the settlement – the largest ever in a U.S. copyright case – at a hearing next month.

Anthropic was the first and ​remains the only major AI company to settle a U.S. class-action by copyright holders alleging AI ​platforms used their work without permission to train their systems."

The ‘Shy Girl’ Fiasco Shows Why Trust in Writers Is Plummeting; The New York Times, March 25, 2026

Andrea Bartz , The New York Times; The ‘Shy Girl’ Fiasco Shows Why Trust in Writers Is Plummeting

"But as generative artificial intelligence worms its way through the publishing industry, I’m bracing for a stomach-turning query: Did you actually write this?

The worry has been at the front of my mind since last week, when Hachette canceled the forthcoming U.S. publication of the horror novel “Shy Girl” after readers and journalists flagged prose that sounded like A.I. slop. (The author maintains that a freelance editor is to blame for any prose written by a large language model.)

Though I’m against the use of generative A.I. in creative writing, not everyone feels the same way. What does seem clear, however, is that most readers want disclosure when A.I. has been used, and they are quick to note the telltale rhythms and patterns of popular large language models.

But as A.I. models continue to improve, I’m concerned that it will become difficult to distinguish between something written by a human versus a bot. As more A.I.-generated writing is put out in the world, more readers will question whether the text they are poring over was penned by a human. We’re barreling toward a rapid erosion of trust between authors and readers, and the publishing industry is unprepared to deal with the consequences."

Iowa can restrict LGBTQ+ books and topics at schools, appellate court rules; Associated Press via The Guardian, April 6, 2026

Associated Press via The Guardian; Iowa can restrict LGBTQ+ books and topics at schools, appellate court rules

Ruling, vacating lower court’s temporary block, applies to classrooms and libraries up to sixth grade 

"Iowa can enforce a law that restricts teachers from talking about LGBTQ+ topics with students in kindergarten through the sixth grade and bans some books in libraries and classrooms, an appellate court said on Monday.

The decision for now vacates a lower court judge’s temporary blocks on the law.

The measure was first approved by Republican majorities in the Iowa house and senate and the Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, in 2023, which they said reinforced age-appropriate education in kindergarten through 12th grades. It has been a back-and-forth battle in the courts in the three years since lawsuits were filed by the Iowa State Education Association, major publishing houses and bestselling authors, as well as Iowa Safe Schools, an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization."

AI is dressing up greed as progress on creative rights; Financial Times, March 14, 2026

 CAMILLA CAVENDISH, Financial Times; AI is dressing up greed as progress on creative rights

"At this week’s London Book Fair, a lot of people were walking around with one particular title wedged under their arms. Called Don’t Steal This Book, its pages are empty apart from the names of thousands of authors, including Kazuo Ishiguro and Richard Osman. It’s a chilling protest against the rampant theft of creative work by tech firms, which could leave future artists unable to earn a living."

Thousands of authors publish ‘empty’ book in protest over AI using their work; The Guardian, March 10, 2026

 Dan Milmo, The Guardian; Thousands of authors publish ‘empty’ book in protest over AI using their work

"Thousands of authors including Kazuo Ishiguro, Philippa Gregory and Richard Osman have published an “empty” book to protest against AI firms using their work without permission.

About 10,000 writers have contributed to Don’t Steal This Book, in which the only content is a list of their names. Copies of the work are being distributed to attenders at the London book fair on Tuesday, a week before the UK government is due to issue an assessment on the economic cost of proposed changes in copyright law."

The New Fabio Is Claude; The New York Times, February 8, 2026

 Alexandra Alter , The New York Times; The New Fabio Is Claude

The romance industry, always at the vanguard of technological change, is rapidly adapting to A.I. Not everyone is on board.

"A longtime romance novelist who has been published by Harlequin and Mills & Boon, Ms. Hart was always a fast writer. Working on her own, she released 10 to 12 books a year under five pen names, on top of ghostwriting. But with the help of A.I., Ms. Hart can publish books at an astonishing rate. Last year, she produced more than 200 romance novels in a range of subgenres, from dark mafia romances to sweet teen stories, and self-published them on Amazon. None were huge blockbusters, but collectively, they sold around 50,000 copies, earning Ms. Hart six figures...

Ms. Hart has become an A.I. evangelist. Through her author-coaching business, Plot Prose, she’s taught more than 1,600 people how to produce a novel with artificial intelligence, she said. She’s rolling out her proprietary A.I. writing program, which can generate a book based on an outline in less than an hour, and costs between $80 and $250 a month.

But when it comes to her current pen names, Ms. Hart doesn’t disclose her use of A.I., because there’s still a strong stigma around the technology, she said. Coral Hart is one of her early, now retired pseudonyms, and it’s the name she uses to teach A.I.-assisted writing; she requested anonymity because she still uses her real name for some publishing and coaching projects. She fears that revealing her A.I. use would damage her business for that work.

But she predicts attitudes will soon change, and is adding three new pen names that will be openly A.I.-assisted, she said.

The way Ms. Hart sees it, romance writers must either embrace artificial intelligence, or get left behind...

The writer Elizabeth Ann West, one of Future Fiction’s founders, who came up with the plot of “Bridesmaids and Bourbon,” believes the audience would be bigger if the books weren’t labeled as A.I. The novels, which are available on Amazon, come with a disclaimer on their product page: “This story was produced using author‑directed AI tools.”

“If you hide that there’s A.I., it sells just fine,” she said."

Publishers Strike Back Against Google in Infringement Suit; Publishers Weekly, February 6, 2026

 Jim Milliot , Publishers Weekly; Publishers Strike Back Against Google in Infringement Suit

"The Association of American Publishers continued its fight this week to allow two of its members, Hachette Book Group and Cengage, to join a class action copyright infringement lawsuit against Google and its generative AI product Gemini. The lawsuit was first brought by a group of illustrators and writers in 2023.

In mid-January the AAP filed its first motion to allow the two publishers to take part in the lawsuit that is now before Judge Eumi K. Lee in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Earlier this week the AAP filed its reply to Google’s motion asking the court to block AAP’s request.

At the core of Google’s argument is the notion that the publishers should have asked to intervene sooner, as well as the assertion that publishers have no interest in the case because they don’t own authors works.

In its response, AAP argues that it was only when the case reached class certification that the publishers’ interests became clear. The new filing also rebuts Google’s other claim that publishers’ don’t own any rights.

“Google’s professed misunderstanding of ownership exemplifies exactly the kind of value that Proposed Intervenors bring to the case,” the AAP stated, arguing that both HBG and Cengage own certain rights to the works in question and that “scores” of other publishers will be impacted by the litigation."

Publishers seek to join lawsuit against Google over AI training; Reuters, January 15, 2026

Blake Brittain , Reuters; Publishers seek to join lawsuit against Google over AI training

"Publishers Hachette Book Group and Cengage Group asked a California federal court on Thursday for permission to intervene in a proposed class action lawsuit against Google over the alleged misuse of copyrighted material used to train its artificial intelligence systems.

The publishers said in their proposed complaint that the tech company "engaged in one of the most prolific infringements of copyrighted materials in history" to build its AI capabilities, copying content from Hachette books and Cengage textbooks without permission...

The lawsuit currently involves groups of visual artists and authors who sued Google for allegedly misusing their work to train its generative AI systems. The case is one of many high-stakes lawsuits brought by artists, authors, music labels and other copyright owners against tech companies over their AI training."

AI Will Continue to Dominate California IP Litigation in 2026; Bloomberg Law, December 26, 2025

Annelise Levy

, Bloomberg Law; AI Will Continue to Dominate California IP Litigation in 2026

"Lawsuits against AI giants OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity are set to continue headlining intellectual property developments in California federal courts in 2026.

In the coming months, we’ll see decisions in two key cases: whether Anthropic PBC’s historic $1.5 billion copyright settlement with authors will receive final approval and if music publishers’ separate copyright lawsuit against the artificial intelligence company will head to trial in September.

Here’s a closer look at the California legal battles that could redefine the landscape of IP law next year."

OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI Hit With Copyright Suit from Writers; Bloomberg Law, December 22, 2025

Annelise Levy, Bloomberg Law; OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI Hit With Copyright Suit from Writers

"Writers including Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist John Carreyrou filed a copyright lawsuit accusing six AI giants of using pirated copies of their books to train large language models.

The complaint, filed Monday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, claims Anthropic PBC, Google LLC, OpenAI Inc., Meta Platforms Inc., xAI Corp., and Perplexity AI Inc. committed a “deliberate act of theft.”

It is the first copyright lawsuit against xAI over its training process, and the first suit brought by authors against Perplexity...

Carreyrou is among the authors who opted out of a $1.5 billion class-action settlement with Anthropic."