TL;DR
A federal judge has delayed approving Anthropic’s $1.5 billion copyright settlement after objections from authors and class members. Concerns focus on excessive legal fees and inadequate author payouts, with ongoing disputes about the settlement’s fairness.
A federal judge has delayed final approval of Anthropic’s $1.5 billion copyright settlement following objections from authors and class members concerned about excessive legal fees and insufficient payouts.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin declined to approve the settlement, citing the need to better understand objections raised by authors and class members. The objections primarily target the proposed legal fees, which some argue could total over $320 million, and the relatively small payments to individual authors, often around $3,000.
Several authors and class members have filed objections, claiming that the attorneys’ requested fees are excessive and that the settlement does not fairly compensate those whose works were used without permission. One objector, Pierce Story, estimated that the lawyers’ fees could amount to $10,000–$12,000 per hour, which he deemed unreasonable. He also argued that the fees are tied to the total settlement fund rather than the number of claimants, many of whom have yet to register for compensation.
Additionally, some objectors, including James R. Sills, have demanded that all copies of their works be destroyed before the settlement proceeds, citing concerns over how Anthropic acquired their works. The court has asked for responses from the involved parties by May 21, including a brief from Anthropic explaining why late opt-outs should not be honored.
Why It Matters
This development is significant because it highlights ongoing disputes over the fairness of one of the largest copyright settlements in U.S. history. The objections raise questions about whether the settlement adequately compensates authors and whether legal fees are justified, potentially affecting the final approval process and setting precedents for future class-action settlements involving intellectual property and AI training.
The outcome could impact how similar settlements are negotiated and approved, especially regarding attorney fees and author protections in cases involving large-scale digital rights issues.
Art and Copyright Law: An Interdisciplinary Study on Interpictoriality (Intellectual Property, Theory, Culture)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Background
Anthropic’s $1.5 billion settlement stems from allegations that the company used a vast number of copyrighted works without proper authorization to train its AI models. The settlement covers over 480,000 works, with authors expected to receive approximately $3,000 each. The case has attracted attention as possibly the largest copyright settlement related to AI training in U.S. history.
Previous approval of the settlement was granted by Judge William Alsup, who has since retired. His concerns about excessive attorney fees prompted an independent investigation, which was not fully disclosed to the current judge or the class members. Objections emerged shortly before a group of 25 class members opted out and filed a new lawsuit, signaling ongoing resistance to the settlement’s terms.
“Every dollar that Counsel takes from the Settlement fund is one that is not given to those actually harmed.”
— Pierce Story, author and objector
“The recommendation for an independent investigation was not fully disclosed to the current judge or class members.”
— Lea Bishop, copyright law professor and objector
“All forms of all of the works must be destroyed and not utilized by Anthropic.”
— James R. Sills, class member and objector
Magickal Protection: Defend Against Curses, Gossip, Bullies, Thieves, Demonic Forces, Violence, Threats and Psychic Attack (The Gallery of Magick)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What Remains Unclear
It is not yet clear whether the judge will approve the settlement after considering the objections, or if modifications to the fee structure and other terms will be mandated. The final decision remains pending, with responses from the involved parties due by May 21.
Digital Rights Management: Technological, Economic, Legal and Political Aspects (Lecture Notes in Computer Science)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What’s Next
The court will review the objections and responses, and a decision on whether to approve the settlement is expected after the May 21 deadline. If approved, the settlement could proceed, but if objections are upheld, terms may be renegotiated or the settlement rejected.
Intellectual Property: a QuickStudy Laminated Law Reference Guide
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Why is the judge delaying approval of the settlement?
The judge wants to better understand objections related to excessive attorney fees and inadequate compensation for authors, and is seeking further clarification before granting final approval.
What are the main concerns raised by objectors?
Objectors argue that legal fees are excessively high, that author payouts are too small, and that some works should be destroyed before the settlement proceeds.
Could the settlement be rejected?
Yes, if the judge finds the objections valid and determines that the settlement is unfair, it could be rejected or sent back for renegotiation.
What happens if the settlement is approved?
If approved, the settlement would be implemented, with authors receiving payouts and legal fees distributed as determined by the court.
