Anthropic, the AI company known for its chatbot Claude, is under legal scrutiny after an expert witness allegedly cited a fabricated academic article in a copyright infringement case. The lawsuit, filed by music publishers including Universal Music Group, Concord, and ABKCO, accuses Anthropic of using copyrighted song lyrics without permission to train Claude.
The Alleged Fabrication
During a recent court hearing, Matt Oppenheim, representing the plaintiffs, claimed that Olivia Chen, an Anthropic data scientist, cited a non-existent academic paper to support arguments about how often Claude reproduces copyrighted lyrics. The article was allegedly generated by Anthropic’s AI and falsely attributed to a reputable journal. Judge mentioned the incident as a “serious issue” and demanded a prompt response from Anthropic. However, she denied an immediate deposition of Chen.
Anthropic’s Response
Anthropic acknowledged the citation error but suggested it might relate to a different, legitimate article. The company has not provided further details on how the AI-generated citation occurred or what measures are being taken to prevent such incidents in the future.
Broader Legal Implications
This development adds to the mounting legal challenges faced by Anthropic and other AI companies over the use of copyrighted materials in training data. In a separate lawsuit, authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson allege that Anthropic used pirated books, including their own works, to train Claude. The authors claim that Anthropic’s AI model profits from “strip-mining the human expression and ingenuity” behind their works.
Computerworld
The legal landscape is evolving as courts grapple with the intersection of AI technology and intellectual property rights. While AI companies argue that training models on existing content falls under “fair use,” copyright holders contend that their works are being exploited without permission or compensation.
Conclusion
The alleged AI-generated citation in the copyright lawsuit against Anthropic underscores the complexities and challenges of integrating AI into legal and creative domains. As the case progresses, it may set important precedents for how AI companies handle copyrighted materials and the ethical considerations surrounding AI-generated content.
Copyright
Dorsey and Musk Call to ‘Delete All IP Law’ Sparks Backlash Amid AI Copyright Battles
In a cryptic yet explosive post on X, Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey called for the wholesale abolition of intellectual property law, declaring simply: “delete all IP law.” The message, posted without explanation or context, quickly drew a wave of attention — and an immediate show of support from Elon Musk, who replied in agreement.
While both tech billionaires are known for their provocative online personas, this statement has ignited a serious debate about the future of intellectual property (IP) in the digital age — particularly as artificial intelligence continues to test the boundaries of content ownership, authorship, and creative rights.
What Exactly Do They Want to Delete?
Dorsey’s call raises more questions than it answers. “All IP law” could encompass a broad swath of legal protections, including:
Patent law, which protects inventions and technological processes
Copyright law, which guards original works of authorship
Trademark law, which ensures brand and consumer recognition
Rights of publicity, which allow individuals to control the use of their name, image, and likeness
The ambiguity of Dorsey’s post leaves it unclear whether he is advocating for the dismantling of all of these systems or speaking more narrowly. What is clear is that both Dorsey and Musk have long been critical of formal IP protections.
Musk, in particular, has famously stated that “patents are for the weak,” suggesting that true innovation doesn’t rely on legal shields. Yet, critics argue that such a stance reflects a privileged position — one made possible by enormous capital, market dominance, and access to elite legal teams.
IP as a Shield for the Powerless
While tech titans may view IP law as an inconvenience, others see it as a vital safeguard — especially for independent creators, startups, and inventors. Intellectual property laws serve as a means of leveling the playing field, providing smaller players a tool to protect their work and negotiate with larger, more powerful entities.
“This idea that IP protections are unnecessary ignores the reality of how innovation happens outside of billion-dollar companies,” said one Washington-based legal scholar. “The rule of law, including IP rights, is often the only recourse small creators have to protect their contributions.”
USPTO Pushes Back
In response to Dorsey and Musk’s remarks, Coke Morgan Stewart, the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), issued a rebuttal defending the IP system. Citing examples ranging from President Biden and Vice President Harris, to J.D. Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” and Donald Trump’s trademarks, Stewart argued that IP laws underpin creativity, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity.
She also referenced the popular show Shark Tank, where patent and trademark protections are often pivotal to whether an entrepreneur secures funding. “IP rights are not abstract legal constructs,” Stewart emphasized. “They are practical tools that empower innovation, protect integrity in the marketplace, and help turn ideas into viable businesses.”
Silicon Valley’s Complicated Relationship with IP
Silicon Valley has long walked a tightrope when it comes to intellectual property. Many of its biggest success stories — from Google’s search engine, which indexes others’ work, to social media platforms like X and Instagram that depend entirely on user-generated content — have been built on models that leverage the creativity of the masses.
Meanwhile, the rise of artificial intelligence has introduced a new layer of complexity. Modern AI systems are trained on massive datasets, often scraped from publicly available — but still copyrighted — sources. This has triggered a wave of lawsuits from authors, artists, and rights holders who argue their works have been co-opted without permission or compensation.
That includes legal action against companies like OpenAI (which Musk co-founded), as well as lawsuits against image and video generators. Both Musk and Dorsey are reportedly developing or investing in their own AI ventures, making their recent anti-IP remarks appear less like philosophical positions and more like preemptive strikes against legal obstacles.
The Bigger Picture: Control vs. Creativity
For critics, the timing of Dorsey’s and Musk’s statements is telling. As the legal landscape tightens around AI training data and content use, the call to abolish IP law seems less about freeing innovation and more about escaping accountability. Yet, for the creative community — from musicians and writers to small software developers — IP remains one of the few tools available to ensure fair treatment in a tech-dominated economy.
“The strongest don’t need the law,” one commentator noted. “But the rest of us do.”
While both tech billionaires are known for their provocative online personas, this statement has ignited a serious debate about the future of intellectual property (IP) in the digital age — particularly as artificial intelligence continues to test the boundaries of content ownership, authorship, and creative rights.
What Exactly Do They Want to Delete?
Dorsey’s call raises more questions than it answers. “All IP law” could encompass a broad swath of legal protections, including:
Patent law, which protects inventions and technological processes
Copyright law, which guards original works of authorship
Trademark law, which ensures brand and consumer recognition
Rights of publicity, which allow individuals to control the use of their name, image, and likeness
The ambiguity of Dorsey’s post leaves it unclear whether he is advocating for the dismantling of all of these systems or speaking more narrowly. What is clear is that both Dorsey and Musk have long been critical of formal IP protections.
Musk, in particular, has famously stated that “patents are for the weak,” suggesting that true innovation doesn’t rely on legal shields. Yet, critics argue that such a stance reflects a privileged position — one made possible by enormous capital, market dominance, and access to elite legal teams.
IP as a Shield for the Powerless
While tech titans may view IP law as an inconvenience, others see it as a vital safeguard — especially for independent creators, startups, and inventors. Intellectual property laws serve as a means of leveling the playing field, providing smaller players a tool to protect their work and negotiate with larger, more powerful entities.
“This idea that IP protections are unnecessary ignores the reality of how innovation happens outside of billion-dollar companies,” said one Washington-based legal scholar. “The rule of law, including IP rights, is often the only recourse small creators have to protect their contributions.”
USPTO Pushes Back
In response to Dorsey and Musk’s remarks, Coke Morgan Stewart, the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), issued a rebuttal defending the IP system. Citing examples ranging from President Biden and Vice President Harris, to J.D. Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” and Donald Trump’s trademarks, Stewart argued that IP laws underpin creativity, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity.
She also referenced the popular show Shark Tank, where patent and trademark protections are often pivotal to whether an entrepreneur secures funding. “IP rights are not abstract legal constructs,” Stewart emphasized. “They are practical tools that empower innovation, protect integrity in the marketplace, and help turn ideas into viable businesses.”
Silicon Valley’s Complicated Relationship with IP
Silicon Valley has long walked a tightrope when it comes to intellectual property. Many of its biggest success stories — from Google’s search engine, which indexes others’ work, to social media platforms like X and Instagram that depend entirely on user-generated content — have been built on models that leverage the creativity of the masses.
Meanwhile, the rise of artificial intelligence has introduced a new layer of complexity. Modern AI systems are trained on massive datasets, often scraped from publicly available — but still copyrighted — sources. This has triggered a wave of lawsuits from authors, artists, and rights holders who argue their works have been co-opted without permission or compensation.
That includes legal action against companies like OpenAI (which Musk co-founded), as well as lawsuits against image and video generators. Both Musk and Dorsey are reportedly developing or investing in their own AI ventures, making their recent anti-IP remarks appear less like philosophical positions and more like preemptive strikes against legal obstacles.
The Bigger Picture: Control vs. Creativity
For critics, the timing of Dorsey’s and Musk’s statements is telling. As the legal landscape tightens around AI training data and content use, the call to abolish IP law seems less about freeing innovation and more about escaping accountability. Yet, for the creative community — from musicians and writers to small software developers — IP remains one of the few tools available to ensure fair treatment in a tech-dominated economy.
“The strongest don’t need the law,” one commentator noted. “But the rest of us do.”
OpenAI and Microsoft to Face Copyright Lawsuits in New York, U.S. Judicial Panel Rules
A series of high-profile copyright lawsuits filed by prominent authors and major news outlets against artificial intelligence developer OpenAI and its key investor Microsoft will now be consolidated and heard in New York, following a significant ruling by a U.S. judicial panel on Thursday.
According to Reuters, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided to combine multiple legal actions, including those filed in California by well-known figures such as author Ta-Nehisi Coates and comedian Sarah Silverman, into a single federal court case in Manhattan. The panel’s decision also includes lawsuits brought by other influential plaintiffs, including The New York Times and renowned authors such as John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen, and George R.R. Martin.
This consolidation marks a crucial step in the ongoing wave of litigation targeting tech companies that utilize large datasets to train generative AI models. Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and Microsoft used their copyrighted material without permission, infringing intellectual property rights in the process.
OpenAI had advocated for the lawsuits to be consolidated in Northern California, where the company is headquartered. However, most of the plaintiffs opposed this move, citing significant differences among the individual cases. Despite these objections, the panel ruled that centralizing the lawsuits in New York would “serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.”
The panel’s decision comes amid increasing scrutiny of AI companies’ practices, particularly concerning the training of generative AI models on vast amounts of data, including copyrighted content. As Reuters reports, the plaintiffs argue that OpenAI and Microsoft’s use of their works constitutes an infringement of copyright law, while OpenAI maintains that its models are trained on publicly available data and fall under the “fair use” doctrine.
These lawsuits are part of a broader legal battle involving tech giants like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, which are facing increasing scrutiny over the use of proprietary materials in the development of AI models. A central issue in the cases is whether the use of such copyrighted works falls under the “fair use” provision of U.S. copyright law, which permits limited use of protected works without permission under certain circumstances.
OpenAI has argued that the lawsuits share a common foundation: the claim that its large language models were trained using copyrighted works without consent. However, the plaintiffs contend that their individual cases are distinct and should be evaluated independently.
The consolidated lawsuits will now proceed under the supervision of U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein, who will oversee pretrial matters and guide the complex litigation moving forward. The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for the future of AI development and the legal landscape surrounding copyright protection in the age of generative technology.
According to Reuters, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided to combine multiple legal actions, including those filed in California by well-known figures such as author Ta-Nehisi Coates and comedian Sarah Silverman, into a single federal court case in Manhattan. The panel’s decision also includes lawsuits brought by other influential plaintiffs, including The New York Times and renowned authors such as John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen, and George R.R. Martin.
This consolidation marks a crucial step in the ongoing wave of litigation targeting tech companies that utilize large datasets to train generative AI models. Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and Microsoft used their copyrighted material without permission, infringing intellectual property rights in the process.
OpenAI had advocated for the lawsuits to be consolidated in Northern California, where the company is headquartered. However, most of the plaintiffs opposed this move, citing significant differences among the individual cases. Despite these objections, the panel ruled that centralizing the lawsuits in New York would “serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.”
The panel’s decision comes amid increasing scrutiny of AI companies’ practices, particularly concerning the training of generative AI models on vast amounts of data, including copyrighted content. As Reuters reports, the plaintiffs argue that OpenAI and Microsoft’s use of their works constitutes an infringement of copyright law, while OpenAI maintains that its models are trained on publicly available data and fall under the “fair use” doctrine.
These lawsuits are part of a broader legal battle involving tech giants like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, which are facing increasing scrutiny over the use of proprietary materials in the development of AI models. A central issue in the cases is whether the use of such copyrighted works falls under the “fair use” provision of U.S. copyright law, which permits limited use of protected works without permission under certain circumstances.
OpenAI has argued that the lawsuits share a common foundation: the claim that its large language models were trained using copyrighted works without consent. However, the plaintiffs contend that their individual cases are distinct and should be evaluated independently.
The consolidated lawsuits will now proceed under the supervision of U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein, who will oversee pretrial matters and guide the complex litigation moving forward. The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for the future of AI development and the legal landscape surrounding copyright protection in the age of generative technology.