Disputes over the ownership, copying, licensing and legal protection of creative and technical works.
Published coverage on this page: 2 cases · 5 statements. Statements are ordered newest first.
Owners of rights in Elvis-associated compositions accuse Anthropic of copying and using 274 works without permission. Anthropic disputes the claims. The suit also alleges infringing outputs, circumvention of access controls and removal of copyright information.
Published
Read the caseLabels describe a response to the linked claim or the action explained in the statement summary. Choose one or more.
5 matching statements
Role at the time: Anthropic, through a company representative
Statement summary
Anthropic tells Pitchfork that it disagrees with the claims and intends to defend the case.
“We disagree with the claims and intend to defend this case fully.”
What this label refers to
The reference is alleged infringement involving the plaintiffs' compositions. Anthropic rejects the legal claims without specifying which copying, training or output allegations it denies.
Role at the time: Plaintiff and music-rights owner
Statement summary
ABG EPE IP LLC joins six other plaintiffs in seeking relief for alleged copying and use of compositions they own or control.
“Action: Filed a complaint against Anthropic alleging copyright infringement involving 274 compositions and Claude outputs.”
What this label refers to
The reference is Anthropic's alleged copying and use of the plaintiffs' works. Filing this complaint expressly challenges that conduct.
Role at the time: Oracle, through executive vice president and general counsel Dorian Daley
Statement summary
Oracle's general counsel Dorian Daley says Google stole Java and spent a decade litigating as only a monopolist can. Daley argues that the ruling increases Google's market power and barriers to competition.
“They stole Java and spent a decade litigating as only a monopolist can.”
What this label refers to
The reference is Google's copying for Android. Oracle directly condemns that conduct and disputes the consequences of excusing it.
Role at the time: Associate justice writing a dissent, joined by Justice Alito
Statement summary
Thomas, joined by Alito, argues that the code is copyrightable and that Google's copying was not fair use.
“Google’s use of that copyrighted code was anything but fair.”
What this label refers to
The reference is Google's copying. Thomas expressly rejects the justification and argues that the copying harmed the rights holder's market.
Role at the time: Associate justice writing the Supreme Court majority opinion
Statement summary
Breyer's majority concludes that the particular copying was fair use, with emphasis on the code's function and its use by programmers in a new computing environment.
“Google’s copying did not violate the copyright law.”
What this label refers to
The reference is Google's copying of Java API declaring code for Android. The majority expressly justifies that use under copyright's fair-use doctrine.
Stephen Breyer is an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1994 to 2022.
1 case and 1 statement
Clarence Thomas is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
1 case and 1 statement
