The Anthropic AI settlement doesn’t mean I’m getting money for my book

The Anthropic AI settlement doesn’t mean I’m getting money for my book

The Anthropic AI settlement doesn’t mean I’m getting money for my book

“Success! Your registration form has been submitted successfully. If you are indeed a member of the class, you will receive formal notice later this year.”

That’s the message you get when you register to receive your personal piece of the $1.5 billion that Anthropic, maker of the popular AI chatbot Claude, has proposed to pay authors after the company was found to have illegally acquired pirated books from notorious online “shadow libraries.” The deal, announced last week , would cover roughly 500,000 pirated titles, with rights holders set to be compensated $3,000 per work — hence that eye-watering $1.5 billion overall price tag.

The terms, if finalized, would make for the largest publicly reported copyright payout in U.S. history and a benchmark for other AI cases pending against OpenAI, Meta, Microsoft, Apple, and others.

But for authors — at least for me — the news feels a bit like buying a scratch ticket, getting excited as the cherries seem to be lining up, and then finding out that you won $60. Maybe. A moment of glee followed by a long, sobering look at the fine print.

If you’ve only scanned the headlines, you might think the ground has been cleared. But in reality, where we’ve landed looks more like the beginning of an administrative nightmare.

At a hearing on Monday, Judge William Alsup called the deal proposal “nowhere close to complete,” postponing preliminary approval and insisting on basic mechanics before any checks go out to the likes of me: a definitive list of covered works, a feasible notice and claims process, plus clear allocation rules for when multiple parties share ownership.

In other words, the court wants a real, workable, detailed process for distributing the funds — and this within an industry, traditional publishing, in which it’s often the case that several parties have claims to rights. Authors retain copyrights to their books, but get publishing deals by licensing those works to companies like Macmillan, Penguin, and Hachette (my publisher). Beyond that, you may also have co-authors, work-for-hire agreements, estates, illustrators, and translators involved.

The bottom line here? The checks are very much not in the mail, and you shouldn’t hold your breath.

Then there are the complex details of the judge’s legal findings and the mixed feelings they’re inspiring across the industry. Alsup’s original ruling, which landed this summer, effectively split the legal baby . He held that training on lawfully obtained books is fair use — a major win for AI developers — while leaving authors’ claims regarding illegally acquired datasets (those from “shadow libraries,” etc.) very much alive. This paints the problem as dirty sourcing, not the unauthorized use of the underlying material.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *