Jump to content

Concord Music Group Inc v Anthropic PBC

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Case Information
Case name Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC[1]
Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California[1]
Docket 5:24-cv-03811-EKL[1]
Filed October 18, 2023 (M.D. Tenn.); transferred docket opened June 26, 2024[2]
Judge(s) Eumi K. Lee[1]
Plaintiffs Concord Music Group, Capitol CMG, Universal and ABKCO publishing entities[1]
Defendants Anthropic PBC[1]
Case type Civil copyright action involving song lyrics and generative AI[1]
Claims / issues Direct and secondary copyright infringement and removal of copyright-management information concerning Claude training and outputs[1]
Status October 21, 2026: Judge Lee heard fair-use arguments on the summary-judgment motions; Reuters reported that she did not rule at the hearing.[3] The clerk’s October 23 notice sets the remaining Daubert motions for October 30 at 1 p.m. Pacific by Zoom.[4]

Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC is a music-publisher copyright action concerning alleged use of protected song lyrics to train Claude and alleged reproduction of lyrics in model outputs. The publishers’ allegations have not been resolved on the merits.[1]

Pleadings and dispositive motions

In March 2025, Judge Eumi K. Lee granted Anthropic’s motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and copyright-management-information claims with leave to amend. The direct-infringement claims were not the subject of that motion.[1] The docket set cross-motions for summary judgment for October 21, 2026; the hearing is described below.[2]

October 21, 2026 fair-use hearing

Reuters reported that Judge Eumi Lee heard argument in San Jose on October 21 and did not rule from the bench. Anthropic argued that training Claude on lyrics was transformative and that the publishers had not established market harm. The publishers argued that generated lyrics compete with songwriters’ work and threaten their market. Lee questioned both sides, including the publishers’ market-harm theory. These are arguments and judicial questions, not a holding that the training is, or is not, fair use.[3]


October 30, 2026 expert-evidence hearing

The court’s October 23 clerk’s notice sets a continued hearing on the remaining Daubert motions for October 30 at 1 p.m. Pacific, by videoconference before Judge Eumi K. Lee in San Jose. It requires counsel or parties appearing at the hearing to provide their names and email addresses by October 28 at 5 p.m. court-local time. The court’s remote-hearings page continued to list the hearing when reviewed October 28.[4]

This notice concerns expert-evidence motions. It does not itself exclude testimony, decide fair use or resolve the summary-judgment motions discussed above.[4]

References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 N.D. Cal., order on motion to dismiss, ECF 322, filed March 26, 2025, pp. 1–12
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 CourtListener docket, reviewed September 22, 2026
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Reuters via The Economic Times, report on October 21 hearing, updated October 22, 2026
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 N.D. California, official remote-hearings page, complete October 23, 2026 clerk’s notice for No. 5:24-cv-03811-EKL, reviewed October 28, 2026.
Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=Concord_Music_Group_Inc_v_Anthropic_PBC&oldid=8441"