Elvis rights holders sue Anthropic
The lawsuit concerns 274 compositions that the rights holders say were used for Claude without permission.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
Companies and other rights holders of Elvis Presley’s music have sued Anthropic in the United States. They accuse the developer of chatbot Claude of using 274 compositions without permission to train its models.
The case was filed in the United States on Friday, Billboard Brasil and other public sources reported. The plaintiffs say Anthropic used copyrighted material to train Claude. The songs named include ‘Can’t Help Falling in Love’, ‘Don’t Be Cruel’, ‘All Shook Up’ and ‘Return to Sender’.
One of the claimants is part of Authentic Brands Group, which manages rights relating to Elvis Presley’s name and repertoire. Other parties that own rights to compositions are also involved in the case. The lawsuit alleges that Anthropic copied music on a large scale and that Claude can subsequently produce lyrics or content derived from them.
The proceedings therefore primarily concern compositions and song lyrics, not whether Claude can imitate Presley’s voice. Anthropic is developing a text-based model. The legal question is whether collecting and using protected lyrics to train artificial intelligence without a licence can fall under an exception to US copyright law.
The case comes on top of other proceedings against Anthropic. Two days earlier, music publisher Reservoir sued the company over 853 compositions. Other music publishers have also taken AI companies to court. None of these proceedings has yet established that Anthropic infringed copyright.
The outcome could have major consequences for creators, publishers and AI companies. A judge may rule that licences are required for training material, but may also distinguish between training a model, storing copies and generating recognisable passages. Those legal differences will probably be worked out on a case-by-case basis.
For now, the Elvis case mainly gives a familiar name to a long-running dispute over data for AI systems. Anthropic has not yet issued a substantive response to this specific lawsuit. The rights holders’ allegations are therefore not yet judicial findings.
Also show the region and a close-up
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- Rights holders have sued Anthropic over 274 compositions.
- Anthropic makes Claude, a text-based AI model.
- The lawsuit alleges that protected music was used for training without permission.
- No judge has yet established that Anthropic committed infringement.
Left
Arguments AI companies must not treat creative work as a free raw material. Creators and rights holders must retain control and receive fair compensation when their work powers commercial AI systems.
Values Workers’ rights, cultural diversity and fair distribution of economic returns.
Consequences Licensing requirements could strengthen creators’ position, but could also make smaller AI developers more expensive and less accessible.
Centre
Arguments A workable legal distinction is needed between model training, storing source material and generating recognisable passages. Transparency and collective licensing could reduce the conflict without bringing research to a complete halt.
Values Legal certainty, innovation and balance between public interests and private rights.
Consequences Clear rules could encourage investment and licensing markets, but would probably differ according to the type of work and application.
Right
Arguments Copyright must be strictly enforced and companies must obtain permission in advance. Commercial AI companies must not decide for themselves that mass copying falls under a broad exception.
Values Property, freedom of contract and protection of existing businesses.
Consequences Strict enforcement could strengthen the market for licensed training data, but could limit model development or shift it to countries with more lenient rules.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The date, the number of compositions and the parties involved are confirmed by multiple public sources. The article clearly distinguishes between allegations and judicially established facts.
- confirmed Rights holders of Elvis’s music filed a lawsuit against Anthropic on 23 October. — Reported by Billboard Brasil and a second public source. source
- confirmed The lawsuit concerns 274 compositions. — The number is mentioned in reporting on the case. source
- confirmed Reservoir sued Anthropic two days earlier over 853 compositions. — Reported in public coverage of the recent proceedings. source
- confirmed There has been no judicial finding that Anthropic infringed copyright. — The available sources describe the matter as a new lawsuit, not a ruling. source
- confirmed The case primarily concerns compositions and song lyrics, not imitating Presley’s voice. — The sources describe the use of compositions and lyrics for a text-based model. source
Editor's note
It is certain that on 23 October 2026 a lawsuit concerning 274 compositions against Anthropic was reported. The precise legal claims and the contents of the full complaint were not fully publicly available; they have therefore not been described in greater detail.Sources
More on this in Dutch media
- AD — „anthropic elvis presley”
- RTL Nieuws — „anthropic elvis presley”
- FD — „anthropic elvis presley”