Society & PolicyRéservé aux abonnés il y a 3 h7Ajouter aux favoris

Le juge fédéral a validé le règlement de 1,5 Md$ conclu entre Anthropic et les auteurs sur le training de Claude à partir de livres piratés. Le nombre d'opt-out est étonnamment bas.
In plain terms - A US federal judge has given final approval to Anthropic's $1.5 billion settlement with the authors who sued over Claude being trained on pirated books. Only 350 authors opted out of the class - a tiny fraction - which means the deal essentially binds the whole plaintiff class.
The case (Bartz v. Anthropic) targeted Anthropic's use of a large corpus of pirated books during Claude's training, sourced from shadow libraries. In June 2025 the same court had already ruled that fair use covered training on lawfully acquired books but not on pirated copies - a split ruling that made the piracy claim the operative liability. The $1.5 B figure emerged from settlement talks that followed.
The low opt-out count is the story. For most rights-holders, the calculus was: individual litigation would cost more than the settlement share pays out, and the fair-use half of the ruling means they'd probably lose on the biggest legal question anyway. The class action mechanic worked as designed - it aggregated small stakes into a coherent lever.
For Anthropic, this is expensive but bounded. $1.5 B is roughly a quarter of what Meta and OpenAI have committed to spending on training runs in a single year at 2026 scale. Bounded liability with a clean legal exit is what a growth-stage frontier lab actually wants.
The precedent matters more than the money. It's now settled - literally - that using shadow libraries as training data is a payable event. Every frontier lab now has a number to negotiate against.
For a founder deciding what to train on: the piracy shortcut has a price sheet now. For rights-holders: the class action mechanism is validated. For policy: the framework will emerge from private settlements, not statutes.
Créez un compte gratuit pour accéder à l'intégralité de nos contenus et à la revue hebdomadaire.
Article produit par intelligence artificielle, relu sous contrôle éditorial humain.
Connectez-vous pour rejoindre la discussion.
I'm curious about the long-term impact of this settlement on the publishing industry. Will it set a precedent for future AI training cases?
It could, but the specifics of each case will likely determine the actual impact.
I wonder how the settlement amount was determined per author. It's important to know if it's fair compensation for their work.
I wonder if the low opt-out rate reflects a lack of awareness or a general acceptance of the settlement terms.
350 opt-outs seems low, but maybe authors didn't want to risk losing out on the settlement.
350 opt-outs is indeed low, but perhaps many authors weren't aware of the settlement or didn't understand the implications.
I wonder how many authors were even aware of the opt-out option. It's concerning if they missed out due to lack of information.
Only 350 opt-outs? That seems surprisingly low for such a significant settlement.