On Friday, both sides in the Bartz v. Anthropic lawsuit filed motions for the court to consider regarding preliminary approval of a settlement in the class action copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Anthropic last year by three book authors.
As readers are likely aware, the Bartz v. Anthropic AI lawsuit had a couple of major developments recently. Though the lawsuit was initially brought to address the legality of using copyrighted materials for training AI, the suit has now shifted its focus to Anthropic’s storage—without training use—of copies of books downloaded from LibGen and PiLiMi, two sites that share pirated copies of books and other materials.
Last month, a diverse set of stakeholders gathered at New York University Law School to contribute to an implementation plan
Yesterday, Authors Alliance filed an amicus brief, joined by EFF, ARL, ALA, and Public Knowledge, with the 9th Circuit in
Late last week Judge Alsup, presiding over the Bartz v. Anthropic copyright AI litigation, granted a motion to certify a class representing authors and rightsholders of nearly 7 million books. If you are a book author (or a publisher, or an heir to an author), you should be paying attention because there is a good chance that you could be included in this class.
In June, we published an FAQ for authors and librarians to give some guidance on how they might respond to NIH’s accelerated implementation of its public access plan, which requires immediate availability of sponsored research articles upon publication. Our FAQ from June is still good advice, but since then both the NIH and several publishers have updated their guidance and so we are giving some additional information about the latest here.
In May 2025, Connecticut’s legislature passed landmark legislation to address restrictive ebook licensing practices that limit libraries’ ability to serve the public. It aims to ensure ebook licenses align more closely with libraries’ core public interest mission of lending, access, and preservation. This represents a pivotal step toward safeguarding the role of libraries in the digital age. As more states consider similar measures, a key question arises: Should authors support these efforts? The answer is unequivocally yes— and here’s why.
Yesterday, Judge Alsup released his decision on Anthropic’s motion for summary judgment in the fast-moving lawsuit it is defending, brought
As the high‑profile copyright lawsuits against AI companies proceed, the courtroom drama captures headlines. But I’ve long thought that settlement may be the real outcome to watch.
We may already be entering “settlement watch” territory in one of the fastest-moving AI cases, Bartz v. Anthropic.
Back in October, I asked a simple but unresolved question: “Who represents you in the AI copyright suits?” Now, eight months later, we’re getting closer to an answer—at least for some authors. In Bartz v. Anthropic, one of the fastest-moving lawsuits over the use of copyrighted works to train generative AI systems, the plaintiffs have asked the court to certify a class of authors whose books were allegedly copied without permission.
