Anthropic hit with largest-ever $1.5 billion penalty in copyright lawsuit — court says training AI on published material is fair use, but startup’s pirated library infringes on authors’ rights
Anthropic pays authors and publishers for pirating millions of books.
A U.S. federal judge granted the final approval of Anthropic’s $1.5-billion settlement over the class action lawsuit authors filed against it for infringing their rights. According to Reuters, while the court ruled that training AI on books is considered fair use under copyright law, it was the fact that Anthropic kept 7 million pirated books in a central library that violated the copyrights of the authors and their publishers. This is reportedly the biggest payout in a copyright case ever, and the first one to settle among the many cases against AI firms being tried today for infringement.
While this might seem like a massive sum, the huge number of involved works and authors means that the payout amounts to a little over $200 per title. It also affirmed that AI firms’ use of existing works to train their models is fair use, which is something that many are fighting against. "We reached this settlement in 2025, after the court's landmark ruling that training AI on books is fair use under copyright law — which remains the law today," said Anthropic deputy general counsel Aparna Sridhar. "We are pleased that more than 91% of authors and publishers covered by the settlement have claimed their share of the payment, and we're looking forward to bringing this matter to a close." Because of this, some groups have opted out of the settlement and instead filed separate complaints against the AI firm.
Still, this is a landmark win for copyright holders, especially against other AI tech companies that have been scraping pirated content to train their models. This includes Nvidia, which allegedly used scripts in its NeMo Framework specifically designed for illegally downloading books, and Meta, which reportedly torrented 82TB of pirated books for AI training. The latter argued that its framework also have “non-infringing uses,” but the court said that it’s not the entire system, but specific tools within it that were the issue. As for Meta, it claimed that its use of pirated material was legal as long as it did not seed content.
Copyright infringement is one of the major issues that AI tools are facing at the moment, especially as many creators believe that these models were trained on stolen data. Anthropic’s landmark settlement is a first major win for authors and publishers — although it wasn’t exactly what some wanted, given that the settlement is small compared to the number of pirated books and that AI training is still considered fair use.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.
-
GenericUser2001 They should have done what Google did when it created Google Books - check a ton of books out from libraries, and then mass scan them.Reply -
hotaru251 Replywhile the court ruled that training AI on books is considered fair use under copyright law
so basically if you wanna pirate just make a defense that you were making your own model and you are all good....man the system is so broken its beyond funny.... -
GenericUser2001 Reply
Huh? Anthropic is having to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement because of their "piracy" (well copyright infringement). I would not call that "all good". Its just that using the data for AI training by itself is considered fair use as it is "transformative" enough to fall under that doctrine.hotaru251 said:so basically if you wanna pirate just make a defense that you were making your own model and you are all good....man the system is so broken its beyond funny.... -
bigdragon Replywhile the court ruled that training AI on books is considered fair use under copyright law
So it's fair use for a 380 billion dollar AI company to ingest and later reproduce -- for a profit -- text from a book verbatim. Meanwhile, some poor puts a quote from a public official in a video, shares a screenshot or clip from a game, or has a few seconds of background music in a short and the corporations are screaming copyright infringement while trying to bury the person responsible. This ruling makes no sense. A normal person would not be treated the same way Anthropic is being treated here.
I'm really tired of all these "guilty enough for a payout, but not guilty enough to be assigned fault" rulings. -
-Fran- It's ok guys. The investors will pay/cover this with a smile on their collective faces!Reply
Heh.
Regards. -
paxhumana123 Replyhotaru251 said:so basically if you wanna pirate just make a defense that you were making your own model and you are all good....man the system is so broken its beyond funny....
The solution is simple, find the copyright squatting scum and make them all go on one way camping/fishing trips...no one to claim copyrights on you also means no one to file copyright claims on you, right?GenericUser2001 said:They should have done what Google did when it created Google Books - check a ton of books out from libraries, and then mass scan them. -
COLGeek Reply
Just for clarity, please define "copyright squatting scum".paxhumana123 said:The solution is simple, find the copyright squatting scum and make them all go on one way camping/fishing trips...no one to claim copyrights on you also means no one to file copyright claims on you, right?
I'm not following this threatening logic. -
Dav_Daddy ReplyAdmin said:Meta, which reportedly torrented 82TB of pirated books for AI training. The latter argued that its framework also have “non-infringing uses,” but the court said that it’s not the entire system, but specific tools within it that were the issue. As for Meta, it claimed that its use of pirated material was legal as long as it did not seed content.
That's only going to work for them if they own a legal copy in some format of each work in question.
Actually now that I think about it for a minute. Is there some subscription service that allows you to legally access a very large volume of books for a monthly fee ala Netflix? If so and they weren't using a title in more simultaneous instances than they had a right to there is a chance this could fly! -
rw3iss Poor Anthropic. It really is lame. Meta better get slammed worse or this needs a retrial. They're not stealing books and redistributing them. People are still going to buy books if they want to read them.Reply