Authentic Brands Group sues Anthropic over 274 Elvis songs

By Elena Vasquez

Authentic Brands Group sued Anthropic on October 23 for $41 million over 274 Elvis Presley songs. The Tennessee-based licensing group alleges in the complaint that Anthropic trained its Claude model on the songs without permission and used them to produce “unlicensed derivative works.”

The filing, viewed by Pitchfork, seeks roughly $150,000 in damages for each of the 274 songs, adding up to $41 million. Authentic filed alongside co-plaintiffs that hold ownership rights in Presley’s catalog.

Which Elvis recordings are at issue?

The complaint identifies five of the 274 songs:

• “Can’t Help Falling in Love”
• “Don’t Be Cruel”
• “Farther Along”
• “If You Think I Don’t Need You”
• “Run On”

Authentic Brands Group alleges that Anthropic used those recordings to create “unlicensed derivative works” with Claude, linking the alleged training to the outputs the model produced. The damages formula translates the catalog claim into a total of roughly $41 million at about $150,000 per song.

In plain terms, the dispute concerns rights to 274 Elvis songs and their use in Claude.

Why does the case stand apart?

Pitchfork reported that major labels and music publishers had already sued Anthropic, describing this filing as one of the first high-profile cases brought by a single artist’s catalog owner. Lead attorney Richard Busch wrote in a statement:

“The Elvis Plaintiffs bring this action to enforce these exclusive rights against the defendant that has built its entire business model based on copyright infringement at a scale never seen before.”

“The Elvis Plaintiffs are deeply protective of these iconic songs.”

Busch’s statement presents Anthropic’s business model as resting on alleged copyright infringement at a scale the plaintiffs say has never been seen before. The filing asks a court to enforce exclusive rights over one artist’s catalog against an AI developer accused of copying at scale.

What did Claude produce after the “guardrails”?

The complaint cites Claude’s behavior after Anthropic supposedly added “guardrails” following an earlier lawsuit, saying a recent request to recreate specific songs “for a modern audience” produced outputs close to the originals. According to the complaint, Claude reproduced the requested songs and admitted how closely the results tracked the source material.

The complaint quotes the model’s response:

“These renders keep landing very close to the originals: same structure, same hooks reused with light rewording, and full sets of verses/choruses/bridges.”

The lawsuit then argues:

“That’s edging past ‘inspired by’ into reproducing the copyrighted song, even when the words are swapped out.”

On the complaint’s account, light rewording did not remove the claimed copying of structure, hooks and complete verse, chorus and bridge sections. Pitchfork said it had reached out to representatives for Anthropic for comment.

The disputed renders retain the song’s framework and full sections while changing some words, according to the complaint.

What does the lawsuit put before a court?

The lawsuit asks a court to resolve two linked claims: whether Anthropic’s use of the 274 songs created infringing derivatives, and whether the cited renders crossed from rewriting into reproduction. Authentic’s damages demand sets a concrete benchmark of about $150,000 for each song, while any ruling on the cited renders will shape how courts assess copying in AI outputs. The case could become a key test for single-artist catalog owners if a court accepts the complaint’s line between “inspired by” and reproduction for AI outputs built from protected songs.