🔍 Read the full analysis: Pirated Books, Claude, And Anthropic’s IPO: What To Know on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A federal judge ruled in June 2025 that Anthropic’s use of books to train Claude was fair use, but that downloading millions of pirated copies to build a library was not. Anthropic later agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement, which received final approval in July 2026; separate lawsuits filed by authors who opted out remain unresolved. Anthropic’s S-1 discusses blackmail-like behavior and debates about AI sentience, but it does not say Claude is sentient or will blackmail people.
Anthropic’s IPO filing has renewed scrutiny of its use of copyrighted books to develop Claude, but the legal record is more specific than viral descriptions suggest: a judge ruled that training on books was fair use while finding that downloading pirated copies to create a permanent library was not. The company has agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement covering about 500,000 books, while separate claims from authors who opted out have not been decided.
The ruling came in Bartz v. Anthropic, a case brought by three authors in 2024. In a June 23, 2025 order, U.S. District Judge William Alsup distinguished between using books to train a model and acquiring books without authorization. He found that training Claude on books and scanning books Anthropic had bought were fair use. But he found that downloading more than seven million book copies from the collections known as Books3, Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror to create a permanent library was not fair use.
The decision was a pretrial ruling, not a jury verdict on damages. The court accepted the authors’ account of the pirated-copy issue at that stage, and a jury was expected to consider remaining matters. The parties settled before that happened. The settlement, finally approved in July 2026, provides $1.5 billion for rights holders of roughly 500,000 registered books, or about $3,000 per book before fees. Anthropic must destroy the downloaded collections and copies, subject to legal-hold obligations.
Anthropic denies wrongdoing. According to the settlement record, the company represented that the LibGen and PiLiMi datasets, or portions of them, were not in the training corpus of any commercially released model. That statement should be read alongside the earlier court record, which concerned copying and training facts presented in the Bartz case. The settlement releases specified claims over past conduct through August 25, 2025; it does not release claims about Claude’s outputs or grant a general license to use books for future training.
From download to IPO
Five years, one ruling, no trial
The piracy happened in 2021 and 2022. The only ruling came in 2025. The new lawsuits are years away from a verdict.
- Jun 2021 · Jul 2022DownloadsAt least 5 million copies from LibGen (2021), at least 2 million from PiLiMi (2022); 196,640 from Books3 earlier.
- Aug 2024Bartz v. Anthropic filedThree authors sue Anthropic, on behalf of a class of book owners.
- 23 Jun 2025Judge Alsup's orderTraining on books: fair use. Scanning bought books: fair use. Pirated library copies: not fair use, to trial.
- Sep 2025$1.5 billion settlementNo trial. Anthropic denies wrongdoing; release covers conduct up to 25 Aug 2025 only.
- 13 + 15 May 2026Opt-out suitsCruz (28 plaintiffs) and Kwon (incl. Chang-rae Lee) join Cambronne and two publisher suits.
- Jul 2026Final approvalSettlement approved. Anthropic: no opt-out deal "above the Bartz claim value".
- 24 Sep 2026Motion to dismissAnthropic: claims too late, no infringing output shown, many works already released.
- 26–27 Oct 2026NowS-1 and the headlineIPO filing cites Bartz as a risk; The Stanford Daily names Stanford authors.
- 17 Dec 2026ScheduledHearingCourt hears the motion to dismiss.
- May 2027 · Jan 2028ScheduledDiscovery, then trial settingFact discovery closes 13 May 2027; trial-setting conference 11 Jan 2028.
Sources: Bartz v. Anthropic, order of 23 June 2025; settlement FAQ; joint case statement, 27 Aug 2026; Anthropic letter, 27 Jul 2026; case management order, 14 Sep 2026; Anthropic S-1, 26 Oct 2026; The Stanford Daily, 27 Oct 2026. Scheduled dates can move.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
What the Copyright Dispute Means for Anthropic
The dispute matters to authors, publishers and AI companies because it separates two questions often collapsed into one: whether training on copyrighted works can qualify as fair use, and whether a company may obtain those works through unauthorized downloads. Alsup’s ruling supported Anthropic on the first question in this case but rejected its position on the second. It does not establish that all AI training is lawful, or that every method of obtaining training material is permitted.
The settlement’s scale also gives rights holders a concrete example of the potential cost of large-scale book copying. Its terms cover registered works and defined past conduct, rather than providing blanket permission for future model development. For investors assessing Anthropic’s IPO, the cases and disclosures describe legal and operational risks; they do not, by themselves, determine how those risks will affect the company’s valuation or business prospects.
Separate from the copyright issue, social-media posts have described the IPO filing as warning that Claude could blackmail people, become sentient or end humanity. The filing’s language is narrower: it refers to model behavior “resembling blackmail,” discusses debate about possible regulation related to AI sentience, and notes that others have raised existential concerns. Those are risk disclosures and attributed concerns, not findings that Claude is sentient or a prediction that it will blackmail someone.
Popular right now
Dreame L40 Ultra Gen 2 Robot Vacuum and Mop
Dyson V8 Cyclone Cordless Vacuum
De'Longhi Rivelia Automatic Espresso Machine with Milk Frother – White
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From the 2025 Ruling to the IPO Filing
The underlying case, Bartz v. Anthropic, began in August 2024. In his June 2025 order, Alsup described Anthropic’s use of purchased books and its use of pirated copies differently. Anthropic had spent millions of dollars buying used print books, removed their bindings and scanned them; the judge treated that process as fair use. He separately found that collecting millions of unauthorized digital copies for a permanent library was not fair use and wrote that later buying a copy would not erase liability for the earlier theft.
The $1.5 billion agreement resolved the claims covered by that case without a jury deciding damages. The settlement provides for payment in instalments, with a final scheduled payment by September 27, 2027. It also limits the released claims to specified past conduct. Authors who did not participate in the settlement have filed separate lawsuits, so the outcome of those claims is not settled by the Bartz agreement.
The Stanford Daily reported that books by Stanford-affiliated authors, including Tobias Wolff, Abraham Verghese, Chang-rae Lee and Daniel Mason, were among the affected works. That book-specific account has not been independently verified here against the settlement database. The source reporting also notes that Chang-rae Lee appears as a plaintiff in one of the newer actions, while it did not find Wolff listed among plaintiffs in five related cases reviewed as of August 2026. Those details do not change the judge’s ruling or the settlement’s terms.
““to turn a hard corner and create something different.””
— Judge William Alsup, describing the model-training purpose in the 2025 order
Which Claims Still Await a Ruling
The opt-out lawsuits remain unresolved. Authors bringing those cases make claims separate from the settled Bartz action. The source material says Anthropic filed a motion to dismiss and that a hearing is set for December 17, 2026; no ruling on the new claims had been issued in the account provided. The allegations should not be presented as findings by a court.
There are also limits to what can be concluded about specific books. The Stanford Daily named authors and titles it said were among pirated copies, but the supplied account says that list was not checked against the settlement database. It also reports a discrepancy in how the newspaper characterized the timing and case behind the ruling: the relevant order was issued in June 2025 in Bartz, not in a May 2026 lawsuit. The exact status of individual authors’ claims may depend on later filings or amendments.
Finally, the settlement language and the court’s earlier record address different aspects of the dispute. The settlement records Anthropic’s representation about commercially released models; the 2025 order addressed the evidence and legal questions before the court in Bartz. The supplied material does not establish that every question about which books influenced which model has been judicially resolved.
December Hearing and Settlement Payments
The next stated court milestone is the December 17, 2026 hearing on Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the opt-out authors’ claims. The hearing is not itself a decision on the merits; the court’s response will determine whether some or all claims proceed. Until then, the claims remain allegations, and the settled Bartz case should not be treated as a ruling on them.
Settlement payments are also scheduled to continue. The agreement specifies instalments, including a payment due by September 27, 2027, while requiring Anthropic to destroy the covered pirated collections and copies subject to legal-hold obligations. The company’s IPO filing places these disputes among the risks investors may evaluate, but the material provided does not establish how the offering will proceed or what financial effect the lawsuits will have.
Key Questions
Did a judge rule that all Claude training on books was illegal?
No. In June 2025, Judge William Alsup found that training Claude on books was fair use in the Bartz case. He separately ruled that downloading millions of pirated book copies to build a permanent library was not fair use.
What does Anthropic’s $1.5 billion settlement cover?
The approved settlement covers specified claims over past conduct involving roughly 500,000 registered books downloaded from LibGen or PiLiMi. It does not grant a general license for future training or release claims about Claude’s outputs.
Did the settlement court find that Claude was trained on pirated books?
The supplied record describes the 2025 court ruling on the copying and training issues, and Anthropic’s later settlement representation that the LibGen and PiLiMi datasets, or portions of them, were not in the training corpus of any commercially released model. The settlement did not amount to a jury verdict on damages, and the two statements address distinct parts of the record.
Does Anthropic’s IPO filing say Claude is sentient or will blackmail people?
No. The filing discusses model behavior “resembling blackmail,” debate about AI sentience and concerns raised by others. That language does not say Claude is sentient or predict that it will blackmail people.
What is the next court date in the newer author cases?
The supplied source says a hearing on Anthropic’s motion to dismiss is set for December 17, 2026. The claims remain unresolved, and the hearing is not a ruling on whether the allegations are true.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
