Despite the strong objection of Judge William Alsup, who has temporarily rejected the $1.5Billion settlement between Anthropic and a class of authors, this settlement agreement will probably survive. The rejection may appear to delay justice, but it also temporarily protects authors from a deeply flawed agreement that will undermine their long-term interests. While the payout is historic in scale, Judge Alsup rightly flagged concerns about vague documentation, inadequate notice, and the risk of coercing authors into a settlement they may neither fully understand nor meaningfully helped shape. His unease, with the potential for attorneys and organizations to pressure authors reflects a broader fear; that the settlement was more about expediency than equity. When your professional advocates, in this case, the AAP and Authors Guild (AG) immediately endorse the settlement as a done deal that may not be coercive but it definitely represents pressure.
The case itself is unusually clear-cut. Unlike most AI copyright disputes, which hinge on the unsettled doctrine of fair use, this one involved Anthropic’s admitted use of pirated books from notorious sources like LibGen and PiLiMi. Judge Alsup’s ruling drew a sharp line—fair use may apply to lawfully acquired books, but piracy is indefensible. With an estimated 500,000 infringing works, statutory damages could have reached tens of billions of dollars. Yet the settlement proposed a flat $3,000 per work, a figure that risks – perhaps is already - becoming a de facto benchmark for future cases. (By the way, fine print suggests the authors won’t actually receive $3,000 per work).
For authors, this would mean accepting a valuation of their work far below what the law allows, and far below what justice demands. Admittedly, in the stark reality of publishing, $3,000 is far more than most of those works are going to generate for their authors, but that is not the point. Copyright law exists to both protect copyright holders (authors) and heavily penalize those who breach copyright. That’s not happening here.
Anthropic’s financial strength further weakens the rationale for settlement. With a valuation projected to reach $170 billion the absurd notion that company is facing a “death knell” from litigation is undermined by the very recent funding rounds topping $10 billion, which proves investors do not consider any financial risks associated with this lawsuit. That should be compelling evidence that this settlement is not even a slap on the wrist.
Approving the settlement will allow Anthropic to sanitize its past misconduct without meaningful accountability, while leaving authors with a diluted remedy. They should have held out and gone to trial to preserve the only meaningful leverage the authors can exert.
Ultimately, should Judge Alsup reject the settlement only then would this preserve the possibility of a more principled resolution—one that reflects the true value of authors’ work and the gravity of the infringement. Remember, Anthropic (and others) acted knowingly and with impunity to copy these works: With a degree of effort and market knowledge, they sought out these pirate sites precisely because they could get the content for ‘free’.
Rejecting the settlement also avoids setting a precedent that could weaken future copyright claims against AI developers. But while the line outside AAP offices is figurative, I can bet Facebook attorneys are ordering champagne all round this week.
Authors deserve more than a rushed compromise shaped by corporate interests and vague processes. They deserve a legal framework that protects their rights in the age of machine learning. Until courts provide firmer guidance, the path forward should be cautious, deliberate, and above all, fair. This settlement is not that.
****
When the Google copyright case was in litigation, there was a lot of hyperventilation about the universe of 'orphan titles' which, in this highly referenced analysis, I suggested was overblown. We may find that the 500,000 works number cited in this agreement is over egged.
****
Jimmy tried to force Howard to settle the Sandpiper litigation for all the wrong reasons. It led to Howard's unfortunate demise.
No comments:
Post a Comment