By Titik Puspa 
Authors who were anticipating their portion of Anthropic’s substantial $1.5 billion copyright settlement have been met with a surprising turn of events this week, as emails have revealed that third parties are lodging claims on their rightful payments. This unexpected development has sent ripples of concern through the literary community, raising questions about the fairness and accuracy of the distribution process for what was intended as compensation for the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in AI model training.
The significant settlement stems from a class-action lawsuit filed against Anthropic, a prominent artificial intelligence company. While a judge initially ruled that the act of training AI models on copyrighted material falls under the doctrine of fair use, the subsequent pirating of that material was deemed illegal. This crucial distinction paved the way for the settlement, which received final judicial approval in July of the previous year, thus enabling the commencement of payment distributions. The settlement aims to compensate authors whose works were allegedly used without permission to train Anthropic’s AI systems, a practice that has become a focal point of debate in the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights.
Under the terms meticulously laid out in the settlement agreement, authors are slated to receive $3,000 for each pirated work identified. The distribution mechanics are nuanced, however, and hinge on the publication status of the book. For titles still actively in print and managed by traditional publishers, the settlement dictates a 50-50 split of the payment, with half allocated to the author and the remaining half to the publisher. In contrast, if a book was self-published or if the original publisher relinquished its rights, allowing the book to go out of print, the author is entitled to the full $3,000 payment. This tiered structure was designed to reflect the varying degrees of ownership and financial stake held by authors and publishers in the lifecycle of a literary work.
However, the practical implementation of these terms has proven to be a source of contention. Numerous authors have taken to social media platforms to voice their grievances, alleging that publishers are attempting to claim a disproportionately larger share of the settlement funds than they are rightfully entitled to. A particularly vocal critic is April Henry, a seasoned author of mystery and thriller novels. Henry expressed her bewilderment and frustration on Threads, questioning the actions of HarperCollins, her former publisher. She detailed how the publisher had laid claim to one of her books that had been out of print for at least 17 years. Adding to the peculiar circumstances, Henry reported receiving a credit alert on the same day, indicating that HarperCollins had been added as her employer, a designation she vehemently denies. "WTF is HarperCollins playing at?" she questioned, highlighting the seemingly aggressive and possibly erroneous claims being made.
The popular blog "Writers Beware," a trusted resource for authors navigating the complexities of the publishing industry, has also become a hub for these complaints. Victoria Strauss, the editor of Writers Beware, has been meticulously documenting the issues. She categorizes the author complaints into two primary concerns. The first involves publishers seeking compensation for works to which they no longer hold legitimate claims, specifically citing instances where publishing rights have legally reverted to the author. The second category of complaints pertains to publishers demanding the full 100% of a settlement payment, even when the terms of the agreement stipulate a 50-50 split with the author, indicating that the book remains under traditional publishing purview.
While acknowledging the growing volume of these reports, Strauss expresses a degree of measured caution in attributing these discrepancies solely to malicious intent. She posits that many of these issues can be "plausibly explained by poor recordkeeping," a common challenge in large organizations managing vast catalogs of intellectual property over extended periods. Strauss also notes that some publishers have already acknowledged these errors and have proactively contacted Anthropic to rectify the situation, suggesting that at least some of the claims are indeed unintentional mistakes.
Echoing this sentiment of cautious optimism, Mary Rasenberger, the CEO of the Authors Guild, shared her perspective with The New York Times. Rasenberger indicated that she does not view these occurrences as a deliberate "grab by the publishers" nor does she believe that publishers are "specifically trying to screw any author over." Instead, she aligns with the view that the current situation is a predictable consequence of inadequate record-keeping practices and a settlement process that, by its very nature, is inherently complex. The sheer volume of data and the intricate contractual relationships involved in a settlement of this magnitude present significant challenges for accurate and timely processing.
Despite this more tempered interpretation, Strauss herself acknowledges the limitations of her observations. She candidly states that the complaints she has encountered represent merely "a peek through a small crack in a massive wall." However, she finds the sheer volume and the recurring nature of the reported errors to be significant. "The unusually large number of reports I’ve received over the last two days, as well as the fact that authors are reporting the exact same errors over and over, suggest to me that these aren’t the kind of routine glitches you might expect from such a large operation, but something much more widespread and systemic," she elaborated. This suggests that while malice might not be the primary driver, the systemic issues within the administrative handling of the settlement are profound and far-reaching.
Adding another layer of complexity to the disbursement challenges, publishers are not the only entities attempting to secure a portion of the settlement funds. Strauss has also received reports indicating that a number of literary agencies are making claims on author payouts. This development is particularly surprising, as Strauss points out, because "agents are not rightsholders in the books that they sell." Agents typically act as intermediaries, facilitating the sale of rights and earning commission on those sales, rather than owning the underlying intellectual property themselves. Their involvement in claiming settlement funds, which are directly tied to the use of copyrighted material, raises fundamental questions about their role and entitlement in this context.
Author Courtney Milan, a pseudonym for former law clerk and law professor Heidi Bond, has been far more direct and forceful in her criticism of these agency claims. In a candid post on the social media platform Bluesky, Milan did not mince words, stating, "Apparently some agents are trying to claim percentages on the Anthropic settlement, and I do not REMOTELY think they should do this, what the fuck, stop that shit!" Her strong reaction underscores the perception among some authors that these claims are unfounded and potentially exploitative.
Both Milan and the Authors Guild have been instrumental in providing authors with crucial information on how to dispute inaccurate payment allocations. A particularly thorny issue that has emerged is the precise timing of rights reversion. For an author to be eligible for the full 100% claim on a book’s settlement payment, the rights reversion must have officially occurred before August 10, 2022. This date is significant as it is designated as the "download date" within the settlement’s framework, marking a critical cutoff for determining the ownership of rights at the time of the alleged infringement. Navigating these specific contractual and temporal details can be challenging for authors, underscoring the need for clarity and accessible dispute resolution mechanisms. The ongoing saga of the Anthropic settlement payouts highlights the intricate challenges of compensating creators in the age of AI, revealing the persistent need for robust legal frameworks, transparent administrative processes, and diligent record-keeping to ensure fair compensation for intellectual property.
