Authors push back as publishers and agents make claims on Anthropic settlement
Authors are disputing claims by publishers and literary agents on their share of Anthropic's $1.5 billion copyright settlement, citing issues with rights reversion and incorrect payment splits for works used to train AI models.
Intelligence analysis by Gemini 2.5 Flash
Following Anthropic's $1.5 billion copyright settlement for using pirated material to train its AI, authors are receiving notifications that publishers and agents are claiming portions of their payments. Many of these claims are for works where rights have already reverted to the author or for a larger percentage than legally stipulated, leading to widespread complaints and concerns a…
Imagine a big company (Anthropic) used lots of books to teach its smart computer (AI). They had to pay a huge amount of money ($1.5 billion) to the people who wrote those books. But now, some authors are saying that their old book companies or agents are trying to take some of that money, even when they shouldn't, like for books the author now owns completely. It's like someone trying to take a piece of your allowance even though you earned it all yourself!
Analysis
The recent Anthropic settlement, valued at $1.5 billion, was intended to compensate authors whose copyrighted works were used without permission to train the AI model. However, the distribution process has quickly become a new battleground, with authors reporting unexpected claims from their former publishers and even literary agents. This situation reveals the significant administrative hurdles and potential for disputes inherent in large-scale copyright settlements, especially when dealing with decades of complex contractual agreements and rights reversions.
Anthropic
The settlement by Anthropic, which received final approval in July, aimed to provide $3,000 for each of nearly 500,000 pirated titles. The terms stipulated a 50-50 split between author and publisher for in-print books, with authors receiving the full amount for self-published or out-of-print works where rights had reverted. This structure, while seemingly clear, has exposed deep-seated issues in record-keeping and communication within the publishing industry, leading to widespread confusion and frustration among the creative community.
HarperCollins
One prominent example cited in the article involves mystery and thriller author April Henry, who questioned why HarperCollins claimed one of her books for the settlement, despite its rights having reverted over 17 years prior. This specific instance, along with a credit alert indicating HarperCollins as her employer, highlights the discrepancies authors are facing. Such claims suggest either significant administrative oversight or a misunderstanding of the settlement terms by some publishers, creating an additional layer of complexity for authors seeking their rightful compensation.
Victoria Strauss
Victoria Strauss of the popular blog Writers Beware has been a central figure in documenting these complaints, noting two main categories: publishers claiming works where rights have reverted, and publishers seeking 100% payment when only 50% is due. While Strauss, along with Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger, is reluctant to attribute these issues to malice, suggesting poor record-keeping and a confusing process as plausible explanations, the sheer volume and consistency of the reported errors point to a more systemic problem. The involvement of literary agents, who are not rightsholders, further complicates the situation, raising questions about their entitlement to a share of these specific settlement funds.
Key points
- Anthropic settled a $1.5 billion copyright class action suit for training its AI models on pirated material.
- Authors are reporting that publishers and literary agents are making claims on their settlement payments, often for works where rights have reverted or for an incorrect percentage.
- Issues include publishers claiming 100% of payments when only 50% is due, and agents making claims despite not being rightsholders.
- Experts like Victoria Strauss and Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger suggest these are likely due to poor record-keeping and a confusing settlement process, rather than intentional malice.
- Authors are being advised on how to dispute these payment allocations, with a key date for rights reversion being August 10, 2022.
The public outcry and the acknowledgment by some publishers that mistakes have occurred could lead to a more transparent and equitable distribution process. This pressure might force the publishing industry to improve its record-keeping and ensure authors receive their rightful compensation from AI settlements, setting a positive precedent for future intellectual property disputes.
The widespread nature of incorrect claims by publishers and agents, coupled with the complexity of rights reversion, suggests a systemic issue that could significantly delay or reduce authors' rightful earnings. This ongoing dispute might erode trust between creators and their representatives, potentially discouraging future creative work and complicating future AI-related compensation efforts.
