Anthropic Wins Early Round in AI Copyright Case Against Music Publishers

Anthropic wins early round in music publishers' AI copyright case

March 25 (Reuters) - Artificial intelligence company Anthropic convinced a California federal judge on Tuesday to reject a preliminary bid to block it from using lyrics owned by Universal Music Group (UMG.AS), opens new tab and other music publishers to train its AI-powered chatbot Claude. U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee said that the publishers' request was too broad and that they failed to show Anthropic's conduct caused them "irreparable harm." Spokespeople for the labels did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the decision. An Anthropic spokesperson said the company was pleased that the court did not grant the publishers' "disruptive and amorphous request." Music publishers UMG, Concord and ABKCO sued Anthropic in 2023, alleging that it infringed their copyrights in lyrics from at least 500 songs by musicians including Beyoncé, the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys. The publishers claimed Anthropic used the lyrics without permission to train Claude to respond to human prompts. The lawsuit is one of several arguing that copyrighted works by authors, news outlets, visual artists and others have been misused without consent or payment to develop AI products. Tech companies including OpenAI, Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab and Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab have said that their systems make "fair use" of copyrighted material under U.S. copyright law by studying it to learn to create new, transformative content. Fair use is likely to be the determinative question in the lawsuits, though Lee's opinion did not specifically address the issue. Lee rejected the publishers' argument that Anthropic's use of their lyrics caused them irreparable harm by diminishing their licensing market. "Publishers are essentially asking the Court to define the contours of a licensing market for AI training where the threshold question of fair use remains unsettled," Lee said. Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington; Editing by Stephen Coates Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab Suggested Topics:Legal Blake Brittain Thomson Reuters Blake Brittain reports on intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets, for Reuters Legal. He has previously written for Bloomberg Law and Thomson Reuters Practical Law and practiced as an attorney.

Anthropic might get to use Universal Music Group's lyrics after all

A judge rejected UMG's preliminary request to ban Anthropic from using copyrighted lyrics to train its AI assistant. The last few years have seen an ongoing debate over what rights AI companies have to utilize copyrighted material. The latest development tips the scales in favor of use: A judge has rejected Universal Music Group, ABKCO and other music publishers' preliminary bid to block Anthropic from using their lyrics to train its AI assistant Claude, Reuters reports. US District Judge Eumi Lee ruled that UMG and co had submitted too broad a request and failed to demonstrate that Anthropic's use of the lyrics caused the companies "irreparable harm." Lee stated, "Publishers are essentially asking the Court to define the contours of a licensing market for AI training where the threshold question of fair use remains unsettled." The case dates back to 2023, when UMG joined some of its fellow music publishers in suing Anthropic for copyright infringement. They claimed that Anthropic used and distributed copyrighted material, including at least 500 songs. "Anthropic's copyright infringement is not innovation; in layman's terms, it's theft," UMG stated at the time. The two sides came to a partial agreement in January of this year. Anthropic confirmed it would maintain current guardrails for reproducing, displaying or distributing copyrighted material. It also agreed to "expeditiously" respond to the music producers' copyright concerns with a written statement outlining how it plans to or why it won't do so in an individual case.

Judge rejects bid to block Anthropic from using song lyrics for AI training

Serving tech enthusiasts for over 25 years. TechSpot means tech analysis and advice you can trust. What just happened? There has been a victory for an AI company in one of the many legal fights over copyrighted works, but the case is far from over. A California judge has rejected a preliminary bid from Universal Music Group (UMG) and other publishers to block their lyrics from being used by Anthropic to train its chatbot, Claude. UMG, Concord and ABKCO sued Anthropic in 2023 over claims that it used lyrics from at least 500 songs by musicians including Beyonce, the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys, to train Claude without permission. The lawsuit claimed Anthropic was violating US copyright laws with its actions. The music groups said they were not asking Anthropic to retrain its existing AI models or remove any from the marketplace. The injunction would not have impacted any models under development, either - it would have just stopped the start-up from using the song lyrics. Judge Eumi K. Lee said this week that the scope of the requested injunction was too broad as the details remain poorly defined - the injunction would have potentially covered hundreds of thousands of songs, not just the 500 identified in the suit. The judge added that the publishers failed to show that Anthropic's actions caused them "irreparable harm," a requirement for the injunction. However, the court issued two discovery orders granting the publishers significant investigative tools to potentially improve their legal arguments, writes Music Business Worldwide. The judge also suggested that Anthropic might still have to pay a large amount of damages to the music industry, which the publishers say they are going to pursue "vigorously." "Though the Court denied the remainder of our motion, which would have required Anthropic to refrain from training on our lyrics while the case proceeds, it did so on the narrow grounds that our damages for this injury can ultimately be compensated with money damages, which we intend to pursue vigorously," the publishers said in a statement. The publishers scored their own victory in January when the court approved protective guardrails for AI-generated song lyrics, preventing Claude from reproducing these lyrics in its outputs to users. Legal challenges against AI companies for using copyrighted material continue to be fought in the courts. In August last year, two music-generating startups argued that scraping copyrighted tracks from the internet for training purposes was "fair use." In August last year, authors sued Anthropic for allegedly using pirated copyrighted work to train Claude. It's not just musicians who are aggrieved by what AI companies are doing. Earlier this month, hundreds of stars and Hollywood executives signed an open letter urging the Trump administration to deny proposals from AI companies that would allow their systems to be trained on copyrighted work without obtaining permission. In February, more than 1,000 musicians, including Kate Bush, Tori Amos, and the Eurythmics' Annie Lennox released a silent album in protest against proposed changes to Britain's copyright laws. Mirroring the US, the proposals would allow companies to use artists' work to train their AI models without permission.

Music Publishers Say They're 'Very Confident' in Case Against Anthropic Despite Legal Setback

Anthropic says use of the song lyrics should be considered fair use under U.S. copyright law. A federal court in California denied an injunction sought by music publishers in their copyright case against Anthropic on Tuesday. The injunction would've barred the AI company from using song lyrics to train the AI models that power its chatbot Claude. The music publishers first filed the suit in late 2023 and while this is a setback for the publishers, it's just one battle in a much larger legal war between AI companies and copyright holders. Concord, ABKCO Music & Records, and Universal Music first filed suit against Anthropic in October 2023, alleging that Claude's responses to questions would include things identical or nearly identical to song lyrics. As the copyright holders, the music publishers argue that such use of their songs aren't considered fair use under U.S. copyright law. U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee wrote that although the publishers sought to clarify the scope of what they were asking for, their inclusion of 500 songs that were allegedly used by Anthropic wasn't good enough, as it was conceded they were "illustrative and non-exhaustive," according to court documents published by Court Listener. "Publishers’ counsel could not say how many songs would be subject to the injunction," the ruling states. "Moreover, the injunction would apply to songs that Publishers currently own and to an unknowable universe of songs that they may acquire while the injunction is in place. Publishers would also 'update' the list to add or remove songs as necessary. Publishers did not offer a concrete or definitive way for Anthropicâ€"as the party subject to the injunction and the legal repercussions of a violationâ€"to ascertain its parameters or comply with its terms." Anthropic told Gizmodo it was pleased with Tuesday's ruling and believed its use of song lyrics should be considered fair use. "We are pleased that the court did not grant the plaintiffs' disruptive and amorphous request for interim relief in this case," a spokesperson for Anthropic told Gizmodo via email. "As the case continues, we look forward to explaining why use of copyrighted material for training large language models aligns with fair use principles under copyright law." While the copyright holders lost this one round, they expressed confidence in the case moving forward. “Despite the Court’s narrow ruling, we remain very confident in our case against Anthropic more broadly," a representative for the publishers said in a statement to Music Business Worldwide. “In response to our preliminary injunction motion," the statement continued, "Anthropic had already conceded the merits of our claims against its infringing outputs of our copyrighted song lyrics, by entering into a stipulation requiring it to maintain â€~guardrails’ to prevent such infringing outputs, thereby resolving a critical aspect of the motion in our favor. The Court noted this factor as an important part of its preliminary decision.â€

Anthropic wins against music publishers with rejected injunction

Anthropic argued that excluding an 'undefined amount of unknown material' from its training corpus would be 'virtually impossible'. Yesterday (25 March), a California judge sided with artificial intelligence (AI) start-up Anthropic by denying a motion for injunction filed by mega music publishers that would have stopped the start-up from using their song lyrics to train its AI models. The copyright lawsuit was first filed in October 2023 by Universal Music Group, Concord and Capitol CMG, among several other large music publishers, which collectively control the rights to millions of songs. The initial complaint alleged that Anthropic "unlawfully copies and disseminates vast amounts of copyrights works", including song lyrics, in the process of building and operating its AI models. Requesting the motion for injunction, the plaintiffs clarified that they "are not asking Anthropic to have to retrain existing models" or "to pull models out of the marketplace". Moreover, the request would not include "any models that are currently under development", they added. However, US district judge Eumi Lee found that even though the publishers have tried to clarify the scope of the proposed injunction, the details remain "poorly defined". The complaint references 500 songs, however at the hearing, the plaintiffs confirmed that the injunction would extend to "all of the publishers' works", the order read. While Anthropic argued that excluding an "undefined amount of unknown material" from its training corpus would be "virtually impossible". Moreover, Lee further wrote that the publishers were neither able to prove reputational harm from Anthropic's alleged actions, nor were they able to demonstrate how Claude's usage of their work is diminishing their value in the market. Rejecting the motion yesterday, Lee said that an injunction requiring Anthropic to retrain already-released AI models or to rebuild the corpus it uses to train its models "could impose unforeseeable costs" on the company. AI and copyright holders have been duelling for a number of years now. The unprecedented growth at which generative AI and large language models have grown has left lawmakers struggling to catch up. In August 2024, Meta and Universal Music Group struck a deal that saw the Facebook parent start cracking down on unauthorised AI-generated content that violates the copyright of the group's musicians. While recently, in response to proposed changes to UK copyright law that would allow AI developers to train their models using copyrighted material, more than 1,000 artists, including Annie Lennox, Kate Bush, Billy Ocean and Hans Zimmer, released a silent album titled 'Is This What We Want?'. Similar lawsuits are being filed and fought. Last month, more than a dozen top news publishers, including Forbes, Condé Nast and Politico filed a joint lawsuit against Canadian AI company Cohere over allegations of "systematic copyright and trademark infringement". Don't miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic's digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Anthropic Wins Early Round in Music Publishers' AI Copyright Case

Lawsuit claimed Anthropic's AI training has diminished licensing market Artificial Intelligence (AI) company Anthropic convinced a California federal judge on Tuesday to reject a preliminary bid to block it from using lyrics owned by Universal Music Group and other music publishers to train its AI-powered chatbot Claude. US District Judge Eumi Lee said that the publishers' request was too broad and that they failed to show Anthropic's conduct caused them "irreparable harm." The publishers said in a statement that they "remain very confident in our case against Anthropic more broadly." An Anthropic spokesperson said the company was pleased that the court did not grant the publishers' "disruptive and amorphous request." Music publishers UMG, Concord and ABKCO sued Anthropic in 2023, alleging that it infringed their copyrights in lyrics from at least 500 songs by musicians including Beyoncé, the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys. The publishers claimed Anthropic used the lyrics without permission to train Claude to respond to human prompts. The lawsuit is one of several arguing that copyrighted works by authors, news outlets, visual artists and others have been misused without consent or payment to develop AI products. Tech companies including OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms have said that their systems make "fair use" of copyrighted material under US copyright law by studying it to learn to create new, transformative content. Fair use is likely to be the determinative question in the lawsuits, though Lee's opinion did not specifically address the issue. Lee rejected the publishers' argument that Anthropic's use of their lyrics caused them irreparable harm by diminishing their licensing market. "Publishers are essentially asking the Court to define the contours of a licensing market for AI training where the threshold question of fair use remains unsettled," Lee said. © Thomson Reuters 2025

Anthropic wins early round in music publishers' AI copyright case

Music publishers UMG, Concord and ABKCO sued Anthropic in 2023, alleging that it infringed their copyrights in lyrics from at least 500 songs by musicians including Beyonce, the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys. The publishers claimed Anthropic used the lyrics without permission to train Claude to respond to human prompts.Artificial intelligence company Anthropic convinced a California federal judge on Tuesday to reject a preliminary bid to block it from using lyrics owned by Universal Music Group and other music publishers to train its AI-powered chatbot Claude. US District Judge Eumi Lee said that the publishers' request was too broad and that they failed to show Anthropic's conduct caused them "irreparable harm." The publishers said in a statement that they "remain very confident in our case against Anthropic more broadly." An Anthropic spokesperson said the company was pleased that the court did not grant the publishers' "disruptive and amorphous request." Music publishers UMG, Concord and ABKCO sued Anthropic in 2023, alleging that it infringed their copyrights in lyrics from at least 500 songs by musicians including Beyonce, the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys. The publishers claimed Anthropic used the lyrics without permission to train Claude to respond to human prompts. The lawsuit is one of several arguing that copyrighted works by authors, news outlets, visual artists and others have been misused without consent or payment to develop AI products. Tech companies including OpenAI, Microsoft and Meta Platforms have said that their systems make "fair use" of copyrighted material under U.S. copyright law by studying it to learn to create new, transformative content. Fair use is likely to be the determinative question in the lawsuits, though Lee's opinion did not specifically address the issue. Lee rejected the publishers' argument that Anthropic's use of their lyrics caused them irreparable harm by diminishing their licensing market. "Publishers are essentially asking the Court to define the contours of a licensing market for AI training where the threshold question of fair use remains unsettled," Lee said.

Anthropic Wins First Round In Lawsuit From Music Publishers Over Song Lyrics

A federal court has rebuffed a bid from a trio of music publishers suing Anthropic to stop the use of their lyrics to train the Amazon-backed company's AI system. U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee on Tuesday found that Universal Music Group, Concord Music Group and ABKCO didn't prove that the existing licensing market is being undercut by Anthropic pilfering their material without consent or payment. She also pointed to concerns regarding the "enforceability and manageability" of a court order that would require the company to rebuild future training models due to the "enormous and seemingly ever-expanding scope" of works that the case concerns. If the injunction was granted, it would've extended to hundreds of thousands of songs owned by the music publishers. In a statement, Universal Music Group said it remains "very confident in our case against Anthropic more broadly." It added that Anthropic "already conceded the merits of our claims against its infringing outputs of our copyrighted song lyrics, by entering into a stipulation requiring it to maintain 'guardrails' to prevent such infringing outputs, thereby resolving a critical aspect of the motion in our favor." At the heart of the lawsuit, filed in Tennessee federal court in 2023, are allegations that Anthropic copied lyrics from artists such as Katy Perry, the Rolling Stones and Beyoncé to build its AI model. When asked the lyrics to Perry's "Roar," for example, the company's AI chatbot Claude provided an near-identical copy of the words in the piece. The publishers sought a sweeping court order that would temporarily block Anthropic from using lyrics owned by the publishers moving forward. In Tuesday's ruling, the court stressed the "unknowable universe of songs" that the injunction would apply to. It said that it doesn't have "unfettered discretion" to issue such an order. "Publishers did not offer a concrete or definitive way for Anthropic - as the party subject to the injunction and the legal repercussions of a violation - to ascertain its parameters or comply with its terms," Lee wrote. Anthropic maintained that excluding an undefined amount of material from its training library would be "virtually impossible" and would require it to "have to undertake constant efforts to update the corpus, and restart the future model's training process." Earlier this year, Anthropic and music publishers reached a deal to maintain existing guardrails that prevent Claude from providing lyrics to songs they own or create new song lyrics based on the copyrighted material.

Music Publishers Fail to Block Anthropic For AI Use of Lyrics

Disclaimer: This content generated by AI & may have errors or hallucinations. Edit before use. Read our Terms of use Artificial intelligence company Anthropic secured a crucial win in a U.S. federal court this week as a judge denied music publishers' request to block it from using copyrighted song lyrics to train its chatbot, Claude, Reuters reported. U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee rejected the music publishers' plea for a preliminary injunction, stating that they failed to prove Anthropic's actions caused them "irreparable harm." The ruling is a setback for Universal Music Group (UMG), Concord, and ABKCO, which filed a lawsuit in 2023 accusing Anthropic of unlawfully using lyrics from at least 500 songs -- including hits from Beyoncé, The Rolling Stones, and The Beach Boys -- to train its AI models. Reacting to the decision, the publishers maintained confidence in their case, stating, "We remain very confident in our case against Anthropic more broadly." On the other hand, Anthropic welcomed the ruling, calling the publishers' request "disruptive and amorphous." Despite this win, the lawsuit is still in motion. The core issue -- whether AI firms can legally use copyrighted materials to train their AI models -- remains unresolved and is likely to be fiercely contested in the coming months. The lawsuit, filed in Tennessee federal court, argued that Anthropic's AI models scraped copyrighted lyrics from the internet without permission. The music labels alleged that Anthropic's chatbot not only regurgitated full lyrics in response to user prompts but also incorporated them into creative writing exercises and songwriting assistance. The case is part of a larger movement by creative industries to push back against AI companies using their work without compensation. The publishers argue that unlicensed use of their lyrics undermines the music industry's licensing market and erodes trust between songwriters and their publishers. While a recent agreement between Anthropic and the music publishers introduced 'guardrails' to prevent AI from outputting copyrighted lyrics, it does not address the key concern of whether Anthropic had the right to use copyrighted works for training in the first place. Anthropic's case is not an isolated incident. Across the world, generative AI has become the subject of intense copyright litigation. News organizations, book publishers, and artists have taken legal action against AI developers for allegedly using their content without permission to train AI models. In the United States, the New York Times has sued OpenAI, claiming that ChatGPT can produce near-verbatim copies of its articles. Similarly, a group of writers -- including George R.R. Martin and John Grisham -- filed lawsuits against OpenAI, alleging that their books were used without authorization. In India, news agency Asian News International (ANI) has accused OpenAI of reproducing its copyrighted news content and even misattributing statements, raising concerns about misinformation. Meanwhile, tech companies like Microsoft and Meta have defended their practices under the U.S. copyright doctrine of "fair use," arguing that AI-generated content is transformative and does not constitute direct copying. The United Kingdom has also seen growing resistance to AI's use of copyrighted material. In a unique form of protest, over 100 UK artists recently released an album containing nothing but silence. The project, called "The People's Echo," aims to highlight how AI companies scrape music data without proper compensation. By filling streaming platforms with blank tracks, artists hope to game the system and draw attention to the financial threats AI-generated music poses to human creators. Some AI companies are taking a proactive approach by striking licensing deals with publishers. OpenAI has reached agreements with media outlets such as TIME, Associated Press, and News Corp. Microsoft has partnered with HarperCollins, compensating writers for the use of their nonfiction titles in AI training. These deals suggest a growing trend where AI developers negotiate rights instead of relying on broad legal defenses. The outcome of the Anthropic case -- and similar lawsuits worldwide -- will shape the future of artificial intelligence, content creation, and copyright enforcement. If courts rule in favor of AI companies, it could set a precedent allowing tech firms to train AI models on copyrighted material without explicit consent, fundamentally altering industries built on intellectual property. On the other hand, if courts side with content creators, AI developers may face stricter licensing requirements, potentially slowing AI innovation and increasing costs for AI companies. The dispute also raises ethical concerns about whether AI-generated content should replace or complement human creativity. Furthermore, this battle is not just about financial compensation; it's about control over cultural production. If AI companies continue to ingest and repurpose creative works without permission, artists and publishers risk losing authority over their own material. The increasing number of lawsuits suggests that industries built on intellectual property will not back down easily. As the legal landscape evolves, governments may need to step in with clearer regulations to strike a balance between technological progress and protecting the rights of artists, writers, and other creators. Until then, the courtroom will remain the primary battleground in the fight over AI and copyright.

AI vs Music Industry: Anthropic Wins Early Round in Legal Victory

Claude AI-maker Anthropic legal victory hits a massive tech boost: AI can now use music properties for trainings A major win for AI and the tech industry as Claude-AI maker Anthropic wins the early round of a copyright legal lawsuit. The California federal court rejected the preliminary bid by Universal Music Group Tab and other publishers to restrict Anthropic from using their music properties to train their AI chatbot Claude. Judge Eumi Lee stated that the publishers failed to convince that Anthropic's conduct caused "irreparable harm". Further stated, "Publishers are essentially asking the Court to define the contours of a licensing market for AI training."

Anthropic wins early round in music publishers' AI copyright case

(Reuters) - Artificial intelligence company Anthropic convinced a California federal judge on Tuesday to reject a preliminary bid to block it from using lyrics owned by Universal Music Group and other music publishers to train its AI-powered chatbot Claude. U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee said that the publishers' request was too broad and that they failed to show Anthropic's conduct caused them "irreparable harm." Spokespeople for the labels did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the decision. An Anthropic spokesperson said the company was pleased that the court did not grant the publishers' "disruptive and amorphous request." Music publishers UMG, Concord and ABKCO sued Anthropic in 2023, alleging that it infringed their copyrights in lyrics from at least 500 songs by musicians including Beyoncé, the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys. The publishers claimed Anthropic used the lyrics without permission to train Claude to respond to human prompts. The lawsuit is one of several arguing that copyrighted works by authors, news outlets, visual artists and others have been misused without consent or payment to develop AI products. Tech companies including OpenAI, Microsoft and Meta Platforms have said that their systems make "fair use" of copyrighted material under U.S. copyright law by studying it to learn to create new, transformative content. Fair use is likely to be the determinative question in the lawsuits, though Lee's opinion did not specifically address the issue. Lee rejected the publishers' argument that Anthropic's use of their lyrics caused them irreparable harm by diminishing their licensing market. "Publishers are essentially asking the Court to define the contours of a licensing market for AI training where the threshold question of fair use remains unsettled," Lee said. (Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington; Editing by Stephen Coates)

Anthropic Scores Win in AI Copyright Dispute With Record Labels

Anthropic scored a win this week after a U.S. court denied an injunction that Universal Music Group and other record labels had sought to prevent the artificial-intelligence company from using copyrighted lyrics to train its AI models. Concord, ABKCO Music & Records, Universal Music and several subsidiaries sued Anthropic in October 2023, saying the company was harming them by using copyrighted material to train its AI chatbot, Claude. The record labels alleged that Claude's responses to user queries contained verbatim or near-verbatim copies of the works, saying their reproduction violated copyright. The music companies, which represent a large cohort of artists ranging from Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande to the Rolling Stones, said Anthropic infringed copyright in lyrics from at least 500 songs and sought a preliminary injunction that would prohibit the company from using the works to train its models. However, a judge in California on Tuesday denied a motion for that injunction, saying the record labels hadn't demonstrated how using the works to train Claude caused reputational or market-related harm, according to court records seen by The Wall Street Journal. The record labels and Anthropic weren't immediately available for comment. Anthropic doesn't meaningfully dispute that Claude's training included copyrighted lyrics, the judge noted. The company said Claude's intended purpose isn't to reproduce existing works in response to user queries, but to generate original outputs, she added. The case is the latest in a string of disputes between AI companies and publishers on whether and how easily accessible content like music or news can be used to train AI models. Publishers are moving to shield themselves from what they see as violations of their work from AI startups. Last year, The Wall Street Journal parent Dow Jones and the New York Post sued generative AI search-engine Perplexity for alleged copyright infringement, saying the company had used copyrighted news to generate responses to users' queries, siphoning away traffic that would otherwise go to publishers' websites. Meanwhile, the New York Times is suing Microsoft and ChatGPT maker OpenAI for alleged copyright infringement, arguing the companies used its content without permission to train their AI products. News Corp, owner of Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal, has a content-licensing partnership with OpenAI.

Anthropic Scores Win in AI Copyright Dispute With Record Labels -- 2nd Update

Anthropic scored a win this week after a U.S. court denied an injunction that Universal Music Group and other record labels had sought to prevent the artificial-intelligence company from using copyrighted lyrics to train its AI models. Concord, ABKCO Music & Records, Universal Music and several subsidiaries sued Anthropic in October 2023, saying the company was harming them by using copyrighted material to train its AI chatbot, Claude. The record labels said that Claude's responses to user queries contained verbatim or near-verbatim copies of their works. The music companies, which represent a large cohort of artists ranging from Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande to the Rolling Stones, said Anthropic infringed copyrighted lyrics from at least 500 songs and sought a preliminary injunction that would prohibit the company from using the works to train its AI models. However, a judge in California on Tuesday denied a motion for that injunction, saying the record labels hadn't demonstrated how using the material to train Claude caused reputational or market-related harm, according to court records seen by The Wall Street Journal. An Anthropic spokeswoman said the company welcomed the ruling. "As the case continues, we look forward to explaining why use of copyrighted material for training large language models aligns with fair use principles under copyright law," she said. Earlier this year, Anthropic struck an agreement with the record labels to apply guardrails that would prevent current and future AI models from generating responses that might infringe copyright. The judge said the deal effectively resolved one aspect of the case, but didn't prevent Anthropic from using songs to train its models. "Despite the court's narrow ruling, we remain very confident in our case against Anthropic more broadly," a representative for the music companies said in a statement. "This case remains vital to protecting creators from the wholesale theft of their copyrighted works by Anthropic and other AI companies. We expect that, as we proceed with this case and develop a full discovery record, our claims will be validated." The case is the latest in a string of disputes between AI companies and publishers on whether and how content like music or news can be used to train AI models. Publishers are moving to shield themselves from what they see as violations of their work from AI startups. Last year, The Wall Street Journal parent Dow Jones and the New York Post sued generative AI search-engine Perplexity for alleged copyright infringement, saying the company had used copyrighted news to generate responses to users' queries, siphoning away traffic that would otherwise go to publishers' websites. Meanwhile, The New York Times is also suing Microsoft and ChatGPT maker OpenAI for alleged copyright infringement, arguing the companies used its content without permission to train their AI products. News Corp, owner of Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal, has a content-licensing partnership with OpenAI.