{"id":5090,"date":"2026-10-21T23:15:19","date_gmt":"2026-10-21T20:15:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mubert.com\/blog\/anthropic-lyrics-lawsuit-fair-use-hearing"},"modified":"2026-10-22T09:49:47","modified_gmt":"2026-10-22T06:49:47","slug":"anthropic-lyrics-lawsuit-fair-use-hearing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mubert.com\/blog\/anthropic-lyrics-lawsuit-fair-use-hearing","title":{"rendered":"Anthropic Lyrics Lawsuit Reaches Its Fair Use Hearing: What the Ruling Could Change for AI Music","gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"text"}]},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On October 21, in a San Jose courtroom with no speakers, lawyers spent the whole day arguing over the words to “Gimme Shelter”. Universal Music Group, Concord and ABKCO sued Anthropic over lyrics used to train its Claude chatbot. That Anthropic lyrics lawsuit has now had its fair use hearing, and the judge has not ruled yet. Yes, really. (Fair use is the part of US copyright law that lets you use protected work without permission in some cases.) If you make music, videos or apps with AI tools, the ruling could change what those tools cost, what their terms allow and how hard their filters clamp down on what you type into them. Below: the full timeline, both arguments and what to do now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Anthropic\"Anthropic<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Anthropic lyrics lawsuit reaches its fair use hearing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Reuters reported<\/a> that both sides would try to win US District Judge Eumi Lee over on fair use (via beSpacific<\/a>). Both have asked for summary judgment. That means a ruling on the written record, with no trial, unless the judge finds facts a jury must settle. No jury. No witnesses. Yet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The publishers’ claim is simple. According to MediaPost<\/a>, they say Anthropic trained Claude to hand users copies of lyrics on request. So this hearing is the main event of the Anthropic lyrics lawsuit. It isn’t some procedural side show.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

Update, October 22: the hearing ran all day on October 21, and Judge Lee ended it without a ruling. She took the motions under submission and gave no hint of her view, Courthouse News reports<\/a>. No date for a decision was set. According to Bloomberg Law<\/a>, she spent most of her questions on market harm and pressed both sides to help her decide whether this becomes the first AI copyright case to go to trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the publishers, Matthew Oppenheim argued that Claude reproduces lyrics, sometimes word for word, and that its new songs dilute the market for human ones. “It couldn’t do it if it didn’t have the lyrics in the database,” he said. Anthropic’s lawyer Sonal Mehta answered that users are the ones pushing the button and that “there isn’t anything in the record that shows doom for the music industry.” MLex<\/a> adds that the publishers called the use not transformative whether Claude copies lyrics, remixes them or writes new songs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lee asked whether the publishers’ position would hand them a monopoly over lyrics, so that nobody could write in an existing style without a licence. Law360<\/a> reports she seemed open to Anthropic’s fair use defense and said AI “mash-up” lyrics might be fair use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The420<\/a> says the songs include tracks linked to Beyonc\u00e9, The Rolling Stones and The Beach Boys. The publishers also say Claude produced near-identical lyrics to “What a Wonderful World”, “Gimme Shelter” and “American Pie”. Users only had to ask.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What happened so far in the Anthropic lyrics lawsuit<\/h2>\n\n\n\n