In a significant blow to creatives everywhere, generative AI company Anthropic won a key judgment where a San Francisco judge may have endorsed and signed off on theft of intellectual property.
A federal judge in San Francisco ruled late Monday that Anthropic’s use of books without permission to train its artificial intelligence system was legal under U.S. copyright law.
Anthropic AI is a generative AI company that steals creative content from creators without permission or compensation and feeds its AI to create derivative content that the original creators are not credited or paid for.
Siding with tech companies on a pivotal question for the AI industry, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said Anthropic made “fair use” of books by writers Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson to train its Claude large language model.
READ: Windsurf alleges Anthropic is restricting direct access to Claude AI models (June 5, 2025)
In such a blatantly misguided and blind judgment that makes a mockery of intellectual property rights of authors, musicians and other creatives, the court has set a terrible precedent for the future of human artwork and creation.
The class action lawsuit is one of several brought by authors, news outlets and other copyright owners against companies including OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms over their AI training.
Anthropic told the court that it made fair use of the books and that U.S. copyright law “not only allows, but encourages” its AI training because it promotes human creativity. The company said its system copied the books to “study Plaintiffs’ writing, extract uncopyrightable information from it, and use what it learned to create revolutionary technology.”
A thoroughly laughable defense that should have been dismissed by any prudent practitioner of law, however, this argument was not only not dismissed but was seemingly endorsed by the court, in what can only be seen as a slap to the face of artists everywhere.
Perhaps plaintiffs of more consequence like Disney and Universal may have more luck when it comes to dealing with IP theft, because we know that Disney of all people will not let anyone steal from them no matter what any court says. Perhaps the salvation of the arts may indeed reside with the House of Mouse.
READ: Reddit sues Anthropic for data misuse (June 5, 2025)
What is the Fair Use Doctrine?
The Fair Use Doctrine in U.S. copyright law allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission, primarily for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. It is governed by Section 107 of the Copyright Act and evaluated based on four key factors: the purpose and character of the use (especially if it is transformative or non-commercial), the nature of the copyrighted work (factual vs. creative), the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use on the market value of the original work.
Fair use often applies in educational and journalistic contexts, as well as in parody and satire. However, it is not a clear-cut rule—each case is judged individually in court, and outcomes can vary. Ultimately, fair use serves to balance the rights of creators with the public’s interest in freedom of expression, education, and the advancement of knowledge.