Judge Determines Anthropic’s AI Training is Fair Use, Yet Authors Retain Right to Sue for Pirated Books; Upcoming Trial to Address Infringement and Damages

The emergence of generative AI technologies has sparked significant debate regarding the distinction between original and reproduced content, especially concerning the economic implications for creative professionals. This discussion is particularly relevant when examining the training methodologies employed by AI models such as ChatGPT and Claude, which rely on extensive datasets for learning and output generation. A prominent case in point is Anthropic, which has faced scrutiny over allegations of using copyrighted material for training its Claude AI models. However, recent judicial decisions suggest a favorable outcome for Anthropic, particularly regarding fair use under U. S.copyright law.

Legal Victory for Anthropic in AI Copyright Dispute

Anthropic has been embroiled in legal challenges, primarily centered around accusations that it utilized copyrighted books for training its Claude model. Nevertheless, on June 24, 2025, U. S.District Judge William Alsup, presiding over the Northern District of California, delivered a significant ruling in favor of Anthropic. In this ruling, the judge asserted that the use of legally acquired and digitized books for AI model training qualifies as fair use under U. S.copyright law. Judge Alsup emphasized that transforming text into AI-acquired knowledge, instead of perpetuating direct copying or redistribution, aligns with criteria outlined for fair use.

While the judge affirmed that utilizing legally obtained copyrighted materials for the education of generative AI models does not constitute infringement, he did not extend the same leniency toward Anthropic regarding its use of pirated content sourced from websites such as Book3 and LibGen. The ruling drew a clear line between lawful data utilization and illegal data sourcing, indicating that even transformative intentions cannot justify piracy.

Furthermore, the judge indicated that Anthropic would face a separate trial to address the use of pirated materials and to determine any resultant damages. Judge Alsup articulated his stance with the following comment:

This order doubts that any accused infringer could ever meet its burden of explaining why downloading source copies from pirate sites that it could have purchased or otherwise accessed lawfully was itself reasonably necessary to any subsequent fair use.

This bifurcation in the case allows for authors to pursue independent legal action against Anthropic concerning piracy issues, marking a pivotal moment in regulating the future of AI training practices. By distinguishing between lawful training on purchased materials and unlawful acquisition of copyrighted texts, the ruling establishes a critical legal precedent for tech companies competing in the generative AI space going forward.

Source & Images