In what could be a landmark victory for the entire generative artificial intelligence industry, Anthropic has triumphed in a copyright infringement case. This suit was based on their use of authors’ books as training data for AI language models. In the recent case of Bartz v. Anthropic, authors Bartz, Graeber, Wallace, and Johnson stood up for their rights. They sued the company over its acquisition and use of their protected works. This June 2025 action clearly reversed the unthinking settlement that the federal court had previously recognized as beneficial towards Anthropic. A positive ruling on fair use from the appellate court.
The lawsuit stemmed from the perception that Anthropic had copyrighted many books just to build up its language models. The plaintiffs contended this practice infringed copyright law, accusing the platform of profiting off their works without any legal justification. The court’s ruling clearly indicated that Anthropic’s use of these materials was indeed fair. This unprecedented ruling has established a new model for the ways in which AI companies can use copyrighted material.
In their coverage of the ruling, NPR specifically highlighted how this ruling could impact similar cases moving forward, especially regarding AI and copyright concerns. The court emphasized that Anthropic’s intentions were aligned with building large language models rather than infringing on the authors’ rights.
“We believe it’s clear that we acquired books for one purpose only — building large language models — and the court clearly held that use was fair,” – Anthropic as reported by NPR.
Anthropic’s win marks an important step forward in the continuing discussion over the intersection of copyright and AI technology. Instead, the court has confirmed the company’s lack of accountability. This determination sets the stage for more exploration and innovation in the emerging AI landscape, without trampling on intellectual property rights.
The ruling directly benefits Anthropic, one of the plaintiffs. It sets an important precedent that assists other AI companies in addressing similar harms. As the field moves forward, this case will be an important touchstone. It will serve as the catalyst for more conversations ahead about how to strike an appropriate balance between fostering innovation and protecting copyright.