Skip to content 
More than 49 years after the death of Elvis Presley, the King of Rock and Roll is at the centre of a new legal dispute. However, this time the controversy is not about music royalties, recording contracts or ownership of his image. Instead, it concerns one of the most significant legal questions facing the creative industries: can artificial intelligence companies use copyrighted music to develop their technology without obtaining permission?
The owners of rights in hundreds of songs associated with Elvis Presley have commenced legal proceedings against Anthropic, the company responsible for the Claude artificial intelligence platform.
The lawsuit alleges that Anthropic unlawfully used copyrighted musical works to train its AI models and that its technology can reproduce or create unauthorised adaptations of protected songs.
The proceedings could have important consequences not only for the music industry but also for authors, artists, publishers, software developers and businesses whose creative works may be used in the development of AI systems.
In this article, Lawdit Solicitors examines the allegations, the copyright issues involved and what the dispute could mean for intellectual property protection in the UK.
What is the lawsuit about?
On 23 October 2026, a group of rights holders associated with Elvis Presley’s music catalogue filed proceedings against Anthropic in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The claim involves 274 musical compositions associated with Elvis Presley, including well-known songs such as Can’t Help Falling in Love, All Shook Up, Don’t Be Cruel and Return to Sender.
The claimants include entities associated with Authentic Brands Group, together with music publishing businesses, trusts and other parties holding rights in the relevant compositions.
They allege that Anthropic incorporated copyrighted material into the datasets used to develop its Claude AI models without obtaining the necessary licences or paying the relevant rights holders.The claimants also argue that Claude is capable of producing material which reproduces or closely resembles protected lyrics and musical compositions.
The proceedings seek approximately $41.1 million in statutory copyright damages for the alleged infringement of the 274 works, together with additional relief arising from other alleged copyright-related violations.
It is important to emphasise that these are allegations which have not yet been determined by the court. Anthropic disputes the claims and has confirmed that it intends to defend the proceedings.
Why is AI training creating copyright disputes?
Generative AI systems rely on substantial quantities of existing information during their development.
This information can include books, photographs, articles, music, software and other material which may be protected by copyright.
By analysing these materials, AI models learn patterns and relationships that enable them to generate new content in response to instructions from users.
However, a fundamental legal question arises where the information used for training is protected by copyright.
Copyright generally provides rights holders with control over certain activities involving their works, including reproduction and the creation of adaptations, subject to applicable exceptions.
The difficulty is determining whether copying protected works during the training process requires permission and, if so, whether AI developers can rely on any statutory exceptions.
AI companies may argue that training constitutes a transformative use of existing material because the objective is to develop a system capable of generating new content rather than simply distributing copies of the original works.
Copyright owners, on the other hand, may argue that their works are being commercially exploited without consent or compensation.
The Elvis Presley dispute places these competing positions directly before the American courts.
Is Anthropic accused of reproducing Elvis Presley’s songs?
One particularly significant aspect of the claim concerns the material allegedly generated by Claude.
The claimants do not simply allege that copyrighted material was used during the development of Anthropic’s technology.
They also argue that the system can generate outputs which reproduce protected lyrics or produce unauthorised adaptations of existing compositions.
According to the allegations, Claude has been capable of producing material resembling existing songs even where users request revised or modernised versions.
The claimants further allege that measures introduced by Anthropic to prevent copyright infringement have not been sufficiently effective. This raises an important distinction between AI systems learning from existing creative works and generating outputs which unlawfully reproduce protected expression.
Copyright does not generally prevent someone from being influenced by an artistic style or musical genre.
For example, creating a new song influenced by the broad characteristics of rock and roll would not automatically amount to copyright infringement.
However, reproducing a substantial part of another person’s protected lyrics or musical composition may give rise to infringement, depending on the applicable law and circumstances.
The distinction between inspiration and unlawful reproduction is likely to become increasingly important as AI-generated music and other creative content become more sophisticated.
How much compensation are the rights holders seeking?
The financial consequences of the proceedings could be substantial.
Under US copyright law, statutory damages for wilful infringement can reach $150,000 per protected work, where the relevant statutory requirements are satisfied. With 274 compositions involved, the claimants are seeking approximately $41.1 million in statutory copyright damages.
The proceedings also include allegations concerning the removal of copyright management information and circumvention of technological protection measures.
The claimants are seeking additional remedies, including an injunction and orders relating to allegedly unauthorised copies of their works.
The amounts claimed should not be confused with compensation already awarded. The court has not determined that Anthropic is liable or that the claimants are entitled to the sums requested.
Nevertheless, the potential financial exposure demonstrates why AI-related copyright disputes have become such a significant concern for technology companies.
Why does this case matter for the UK?
Although the proceedings have been brought in the United States, the underlying issues are equally relevant to businesses and copyright owners in the United Kingdom.
Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, copyright owners enjoy a range of exclusive rights in their protected works.
Section 16 of the Act provides that copyright owners have the exclusive right to undertake certain restricted acts, including copying the work.
Section 17 addresses reproduction, while section 21 concerns adaptations of certain categories of protected works.
Where an AI developer reproduces protected material during the development or operation of an AI system, questions may arise as to whether that activity infringes copyright.
Unlike the United States, the UK does not have a broad statutory fair use defence.
Instead, UK copyright law provides specific exceptions which apply in defined circumstances.
For example, section 29A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 permits certain text and data mining activities for non-commercial research, subject to statutory conditions.
However, this exception does not provide general permission for commercial AI companies to use copyrighted works for training.
This means that businesses developing or using AI systems in the UK need to consider carefully whether they have the necessary rights to reproduce or otherwise exploit protected materials.
Could the case influence future UK copyright reforms?
The UK government has been considering how copyright legislation should respond to the rapid growth of generative AI.
One of the central issues is whether AI developers should be permitted to use copyrighted works for training without obtaining individual licences.
Proposals previously considered by the government included a broader text and data mining exception, potentially allowing rights holders to reserve their rights through an opt-out mechanism.
However, following criticism from the creative industries, the government indicated in March 2026 that the proposed broad exception with an opt-out was no longer its preferred approach.
The debate continues over how to balance the interests of AI developers with the rights of creators and copyright owners.
Cases such as the Elvis Presley proceedings demonstrate why these questions are commercially important.
If AI developers are required to obtain licences for substantial quantities of training material, the cost of developing AI systems could increase significantly.
Conversely, if developers are permitted to use copyrighted material without authorisation or payment, rights holders may face challenges in controlling and monetising their intellectual property.
The outcome of the US proceedings will not directly determine the law in England and Wales, but it may influence the wider international discussion surrounding AI regulation and copyright reform.
Is the music industry becoming more aggressive in protecting copyright against AI?
The Elvis Presley lawsuit is not an isolated dispute.
A number of major music publishers and rights holders have already commenced proceedings against AI developers concerning the alleged unauthorised use of protected musical works.
Anthropic itself has faced earlier copyright claims involving music publishers, including allegations that Claude reproduced protected song lyrics.
Other businesses operating in the AI music industry have also faced legal challenges concerning the use of copyrighted recordings and compositions.
The increasing number of proceedings reflects a wider concern within the creative industries that AI developers may be obtaining substantial commercial benefits from works created by musicians, songwriters and other rights holders without appropriate licensing arrangements.
The Elvis Presley case is particularly notable because it concerns a substantial catalogue associated with one of the most commercially recognisable recording artists in history.
It also demonstrates that copyright protection can remain commercially significant long after an artist’s death.
Although Elvis Presley died in 1977, rights in the underlying musical compositions may continue to subsist independently of his lifetime. Copyright duration depends on the nature of the protected work and the applicable jurisdiction.
The case is therefore not simply about protecting the legacy of a famous musician. It concerns the continuing economic value of copyright ownership in an increasingly digital marketplace.
What can UK businesses and creators learn from the dispute?
For UK businesses, the case highlights the importance of understanding the intellectual property implications of artificial intelligence.
Companies developing AI products should carefully consider the origin of their training materials and whether appropriate licences or permissions are required.
Similarly, businesses using AI-generated content for commercial purposes should not assume that material produced by an AI platform is automatically free from copyright restrictions.
An AI-generated article, image, piece of music or marketing campaign could potentially reproduce protected elements of an existing work.
For copyright owners, the dispute reinforces the importance of identifying, documenting and enforcing their intellectual property rights.
Musicians, photographers, authors, designers and other creative professionals should consider how their works are licensed and whether those licences permit use in AI training.
Where unauthorised use is suspected, the available remedies will depend on the evidence, the nature of the copying and the relevant jurisdiction.
Businesses should also consider whether their commercial contracts adequately address AI use, copyright ownership and responsibility for infringement.
Could AI companies eventually have to pay royalties to copyright owners?
One possible consequence of the growing number of AI copyright disputes is the development of more extensive licensing arrangements between AI developers and copyright owners.
The music industry already operates through sophisticated licensing systems covering activities such as broadcasting, streaming and public performance.
It is possible that similar commercial arrangements could become increasingly important for AI training.
For example, AI developers might enter into agreements allowing them to use particular music catalogues or other protected works in return for negotiated payments.
Such arrangements could provide AI businesses with greater legal certainty while creating additional revenue opportunities for copyright owners.
However, there are significant practical challenges, including identifying the works used in training, determining appropriate licence fees and allocating payments between different rights holders.
It remains uncertain whether licensing will become the dominant solution or whether further legislative intervention will be required.
Conclusion: A landmark dispute for the future of copyright?
The legal action brought by the owners of rights in Elvis Presley’s music represents another significant development in the ongoing conflict between artificial intelligence and copyright protection.
At its heart is a relatively straightforward question: should a technology company be entitled to commercially benefit from copyrighted creative works without first obtaining permission from those who own them?
The legal answer is considerably more complicated.
Courts must consider how existing copyright principles apply to modern AI technology, including the collection of training data, the reproduction of protected works and the generation of potentially infringing outputs.
For the music industry, the stakes are particularly high because the value of a catalogue depends heavily on the ability to control and license its commercial exploitation.
For AI developers, the outcome of disputes of this nature could affect the way future models are developed and the costs associated with obtaining training material.
For UK businesses and creators, the proceedings are another reminder that copyright remains an essential consideration when developing, adopting or commercially exploiting artificial intelligence.
Whatever the eventual outcome, the Elvis Presley dispute demonstrates that the relationship between AI and intellectual property law is likely to remain one of the most important legal issues facing the creative and technology industries.
How can Lawdit Solicitors help?
At Lawdit Solicitors, our intellectual property team advises businesses, creators and rights holders on copyright protection, infringement disputes, licensing agreements and the legal implications of emerging technologies.
As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into commercial activities, understanding the ownership and permitted use of intellectual property is more important than ever.
Whether you are concerned that your copyrighted material has been used without permission, are developing an AI-powered product or require advice on the commercial use of AI-generated content, our team can help you assess your legal position and identify appropriate steps to protect your interests.
For advice on copyright, artificial intelligence and intellectual property disputes, contact Lawdit Solicitors.
