Has the Anthropic Settlement Changed Everything?

Header image: Black ISBN bar code on a white background (credit: Janaka Dharmasena / Shutterstock.com)

Recent developments in the world of copyright have been making many writers rethink their attitudes toward copyright registration and reversion of publishing rights.

Because many artificial intelligence companies used pirated books to train their large language models, there are now a growing number of copyright infringement class action lawsuits against them. While it is still undetermined whether these companies’ use of the copyrighted material was fair use or not, it has become clear that the use of copyrighted material from pirate libraries is a no-no, especially when the method involves torrenting, which means the companies participated in redistributing the materials.

The first of these lawsuits, Anthropic v. Bartz, just held the final Fairness Hearing on a class action settlement and, although there were some minor factors which delayed Judge Martinez-Olguin’s approval, it looks as if the class action settlement will be approved and 1.5 billion dollars will eventually be paid out to claimants who met the definition of the class.

Needless to say, this will be an unprecedented class action settlement involving copyright. As currently calculated, claimants for each copyrighted work that was pirated by Anthropic will share $3,100. If the work was self-published or the work’s rights had reverted to the author, they will receive the entire amount. It’s safe to say this is the first time the average writer will benefit from their copyright registration in any substantial way.

But not every writer benefited, for a number of reasons; the primary reason was that the book had to have had its copyright registered with the US Copyright Office. The definition of the class for the Anthropic class action was:

  • have been downloaded by Anthropic from LibGen or PiLiMi;
  • have an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN);
  • have been registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of the work’s first publication; and
  • have been registered before being downloaded by Anthropic, or within three months of the work’s first publication.

Of the estimated seven million works that were pirated by Anthropic, less than 500,000 works were part of the class. As of the May 14 settlement hearing, the number of works claimed was 447,576. That’s about 7% of the pirated works.

The requirement that a work have an ISBN or ASIN is essentially unfair because it only recognizes individual books, but at least it doesn’t discriminate against self-published works. There is nothing in US Copyright Law that distinguishes between “books” and other literary works that may have a registered copyright. The requirement is only to make identifying works and verifying author and publisher easier for the settlement administrators. As I say, though, most books do have one or the other, even if the ASIN is connected to long out of print book being sold used. Presumably some book authors have managed to avoid Amazon entirely, but they must be a small number.

Another similar class action lawsuit, Elsevier Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. was filed on May 5 by a bunch of publishers and Scott Turow as the only named author. It restricts the class even further. The proposed class definition is:

All legal or beneficial owners of registered copyrights, in whole or in part, for any book possessing an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or journal article possessing a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) or International Standard Serial Number (ISSN), that Meta, without such owner’s authorization, (1) reproduced by downloading during torrenting and/or copying of web scrapes; or (2) distributed during torrenting; or (3) reproduced in connection with the development and/or training of a Llama Model. For purposes of this definition, copyrighted works are limited to those registered with the United States Copyright Office (a) within five years of the work’s publication and before being reproduced or distributed by Meta, or (b) within three months of publication.

The main difference from the Anthropic class is the limitation to only books that have ISBNs. ASINs don’t count, cutting out a large majority of self and indie published works, even if they do have registered copyrights. You can understand, I suppose, why the plaintiff publishers want the class restricted to the books that they published, but it’s even more grossly unfair to ebooks that were published without ISBNs because ISBNs are only important for physical book distribution. It’s hard to justify limiting a class action this way when, for all practical purposes, the fairer Anthropic settlement’s class definition worked (fingers crossed).

So will there now be a rush by indie authors to purchase ISBNs? It makes sense if, for example, you claimed a book without an ISBN in the Anthropic settlement, since there’s a good chance it will turn up again in the Turow class. Like with copyright registration and rights reversion, the effort and outlay start to look worthwhile. Large copyright class actions and settlements change everything.

Postscript. The fundamental problem is that there is no comprehensive registry for published works.

18 Comments

  1. Quote of the day:

    “a writer is one to whom writing comes harder than to anybody else.”
    — Thomas Mann

  2. Quote of the day:

    “Don’t use AI to write, use your childhood trauma like the rest of us”

  3. Most indie books DO have ISBNs already, of course. 🙂

    If a book was released in print, there’s usually an ISBN. If the book is wide (non-KU), there’s usually an ISBN. Even for KU books, most authors these days are putting the ebooks into libraries via Draft2Digital, now that KDP changed that rule to allow it.

    Bottom line? Most indie books already have an ISBN associated with them. That doesn’t mean indie authors need to pay for those ISBNs, of course. The courts aren’t requiring a Bowker ISBN registered to that specific author; they’re requiring an ISBN be associated with the book, so any ISBN will likely do.

    Remember, the US courts have affirmed over a dozen times that ISBN ownership has nothing to do with who the legal publisher is – we saw that in stacks of cases against Createspace, KDP, and Ingram. The publisher is the person or company which causes a work to be published.

    Bottom line?

    I don’t expect to see much change in how authors approach ISBNs. Best practice these days is generally to use the free one from KDP Print, the free one from Ingram Spark, and the free one from Draft2Digital, and call it a day. 😉

    1. Thanks for the insight, Kevin. I do believe there are a substantial number of Indie authors who haven’t bothered to get even a free ISBN, but I’m glad to hear that it isn’t a majority of them. Do you think that the Indie attitude towards copyright registration is changing?

      1. Indie authors are required to have ISBNs for physical books, while eBooks are optional. So, using myself as an example, my physical books have ISBNs while their corresponding eBook editions do not, leaving authors like me vulnerable since it’s the eBook editions being pirated.

    1. I agree about copyright–I’m frankly surprised that so many self-publishers seem not to have registered–but ISBNs aren’t necessary for digital distribution and sales, so it’s understandable that many authors have wanted to skip the expense. As Michael points out, however, things have changed…so it makes sense to re-assess.

  4. My first novel is protected. My second book will also be protected. I don’t use AI.

    1. A searchable dataset from LibGen was available at The Atlantic at one point–I don’t know if it’s still there, though. Those works were pirated–though not necessarily by AI. One notorious pirate site, Z Library, can be found on a simple websearch; you may be able to search on your title there (again, though, probably pirated by humans rather than AI). Anna’s Archive is another major pirate site that can be found with a websearch.

  5. Why can’t we go after the pirate sites, such as LibGen or PiLiMi? Why wait until they are scraped into AI and then go after the AI company?

    1. There was just a big judgment against a pirate site called Anna’s Archive. And in 2022, the FBI seized hundreds of the domains of notorious pirate site Z Library. They’re really hard to shut down, though, because they can keep operating with shadow domains and on the dark web–as Z Library did. And for lawsuits, you need deep pockets and substantial resources (the Anna’s Archive lawsuit was brought by publishers). I don’t know what the answer is.

Leave a Reply

MAY 8, 2026

Book Festival Scams, Interview Fakes: Two New AI-Driven Impersonation Scams to Avoid

READ
MAY 22, 2026

Has the Anthropic Settlement Changed Everything?

READ