Some authors expecting a share of Anthropic’s $1.5 billion copyright settlement say they were surprised this week after receiving emails informing them that publishers or literary agencies had filed claims against their payments.

 

Anthropic reached a settlement in a copyright class-action lawsuit last year after a judge ruled that using copyrighted material to train AI models could qualify as fair use, while obtaining that material through piracy did not. The settlement received final approval in July, clearing the way for payments to begin.

 

Under the agreement, authors of nearly 500,000 titles are eligible to receive $3,000 for each pirated work. For books still in print through traditional publishers, the payment is divided equally between the author and publisher. Authors are entitled to the full payment when a book was self-published or when publishing rights had previously reverted to the author.

 

However, authors have taken to social media to complain that some publishers appear to be claiming payments they may no longer be entitled to.

 

Mystery and thriller author April Henry, for example, questioned why HarperCollins had filed a claim on one of her books whose rights had reverted nearly two decades ago. She also said she received a credit alert listing the publisher as her employer, despite never having been employed by the company.

 

At the Writers Beware blog, author advocate Victoria Strauss said she has received complaints falling into two main categories: publishers claiming books for which their rights had already reverted, and publishers seeking 100% of a payment when they may only be entitled to 50%.

 

Strauss cautioned against immediately assuming wrongdoing, saying the problems could be the result of poor recordkeeping. She also noted that some publishers have acknowledged errors and said they are working with Anthropic to correct them.

 

Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild, similarly told The New York Times that she does not view the situation as an intentional attempt by publishers to take money from authors. Instead, she attributed the problems to outdated records and the complexity of administering the settlement.

 

Still, Strauss said the volume and consistency of complaints are raising concerns.

 

She described the reports as only “a peek through a small crack in a massive wall,” but said the unusually high number of complaints—and the fact that authors are reporting similar errors—could indicate problems that are more widespread and systemic than routine administrative mistakes.

 

Publishers are also not the only parties seeking a share. Strauss said she has received complaints involving literary agencies filing claims, despite agents generally not being rights holders of the books they represent.

 

Author Courtney Milan, writing on Bluesky, expressed stronger criticism, arguing that literary agents should not be claiming percentages of the settlement payments.

 

The Authors Guild and Milan have also shared information about how authors can challenge disputed payment allocations.

 

One important issue is the date when publishing rights reverted to the author. To qualify for the full 100% payment, the rights must have reverted before August 10, 2022—the settlement’s designated “download date.”

 

The controversy highlights a broader challenge surrounding large-scale AI copyright settlements: determining who actually owns the rights to a work can be just as complicated as determining who should receive the money.