Elvis Presley Song Rights Holders Sue Anthropic Over AI Training

Rights holders behind songs made famous by Elvis Presley have sued Anthropic, alleging that the artificial intelligence company used copyrighted works without permission to train its models. The lawsuit, filed Friday, covers 274 songs, according to Billboard, as reported by The Hollywood Reporter.

The works include “Can’t Help Falling in Love,” “A Little Less Conversation” and “Don’t Be Cruel.” The plaintiffs contend that Anthropic infringed their rights while developing the technology behind Claude, its AI assistant. Those accusations remain allegations, not findings by a court.

According to Billboard’s reporting, a unit of Authentic Brands Group brought the case alongside other holders of rights to the songs. The action concerns ownership and licensing interests in the musical works associated with Presley, rather than a claim brought by the singer himself.

The complaint challenges more than the alleged use of protected material during training. Reporting on the filing describes accusations that Claude can produce unauthorized adaptations of the songs in response to user requests. That places both the material used to develop the system and its subsequent responses at issue.

According to the complaint excerpts reported by Parade, the plaintiffs allege that requests to recreate songs for a modern audience yielded responses that retained elements of the originals. They argue that changing wording does not necessarily prevent an output from reproducing protected expression. The reported examples reflect the plaintiffs’ account of their tests, not an independent judicial assessment.

Anthropic had not responded to Billboard’s request for comment when its report was published. The available reporting therefore does not establish the company’s specific response to this complaint. Its position on the Presley claims should not be inferred solely from arguments made in other disputes.

The lawsuit adds to the music industry’s broader confrontation with AI developers over the use of copyrighted material. Other music rights holders have also challenged Anthropic’s training practices and alleged reproduction of lyrics. The Presley-related action brings another substantial collection of works into that dispute, while requiring its own allegations to be assessed.

For the plaintiffs, the issue is control over how protected songs are used in commercial technology and what that technology produces. Their complaint frames AI training and allegedly unauthorized adaptations as uses that implicate their exclusive rights. For developers, the dispute highlights the potential exposure attached to both training materials and model behavior.

The distinction between those two stages matters to understanding the case. An allegation that a company copied material to develop a model is separate from an allegation that the finished model generates infringing responses. The plaintiffs’ reported claims encompass both, but neither is established simply by filing the lawsuit.

Attention now turns to Anthropic’s response and the court’s consideration of the complaint. The reporting reviewed does not identify a ruling resolving the Presley claims or a timetable for their resolution. For now, the filing sets out the rights holders’ challenge without determining whether Anthropic is liable.