AI training on music has just landed in a US courtroom, and it comes with a big name attached. Authentic Brands Group, the company that owns the music catalog and image of Elvis Presley, has filed a lawsuit against Anthropic, the maker of Claude. The news comes from The Guardian. According to the British newspaper, the claim is that Anthropic used 274 songs by the King of Rock to train its AI models without asking for permission. The suit was filed on Friday, and Billboard was the first outlet to report it.
At first glance, this looks like a fight far removed from the daily work of marketers in Brazil. Not quite. The case could become a reference point for what AI companies can and cannot do with existing music catalogs. Any change to those rules is likely to spill over onto those who use these tools every day to create posts, ads and videos.
What the lawsuit against Anthropic says
According to The Guardian, the plaintiffs are seeking US$150,000 for each allegedly infringed track, which adds up to around US$41 million in total. The songs named include classics such as All Shook Up and A Little Less Conversation.
But the Anthropic Elvis Presley lawsuit goes beyond the use of the songs in training. The complaint, signed by attorney Richard Busch, according to the newspaper, states that Claude produced responses that reproduce copyrighted material. It goes further, saying that the safety guardrails Anthropic created to block this kind of output were put in place only after the problem came to light, and that they did not work as they should. For the plaintiffs, this would show that the company knew about the risk and moved ahead anyway.
Receive the best innovation content in your email.
All the news, tips, trends, and resources you're looking for, delivered to your inbox.
By subscribing to the newsletter, you agree to receive communications from Método Viral. We are committed to always protecting and respecting your privacy.
A word of caution here. These are all claims made by one side. Nothing has been ruled on so far, and the report from The Guardian does not include a response from Anthropic to the accusations.
Why this case stands out
Lawsuits over music and AI are nothing new. The RIAA, the trade group that represents the US recording industry, along with labels such as Sony, Universal and Warner, has already taken AI companies to court. The difference this time is who is filing. According to the newspaper, this is one of the first major lawsuits brought directly by the holders of an artist legacy against an AI developer.
That carries weight. When a name as famous as Elvis enters the fight, the topic gets more attention and puts pressure on the industry to give clearer answers about where the data used to train its models comes from.
The bigger picture helps explain the tension. As the report explains, AI music platforms analyze huge volumes of recordings to learn sounds, structures and ways of expression, and then let users create tracks from text or voice prompts. Musicians have complained, again and again, that their work and their voices are being used without permission. There is also a fear that generic, machine-made music will end up taking space away from songs created by people. The newspaper also reports cases of AI bots posing as real artists on streaming services.
What this means for people using AI in digital marketing in Brazil
The debate over copyright and artificial intelligence tends to focus on the big companies that train the models. But it does not stop there. Whoever publishes AI-generated content may also have to answer for what they put out. If a post, ad or video includes protected material, the problem can come knocking on your door, not just on the door of the company behind the tool. We have covered this topic in more depth in artificial intelligence and copyright in the news.
In practice, a few simple habits already cut the risk a lot. Avoid asking AI for lyrics or snippets of famous songs to use in captions, scripts or campaign pieces. Be wary of generated tracks that mimic the voice or style of a real artist, since they can cause headaches down the road. For campaigns, the safest route is still to use licensed audio libraries.
Picture a store that launches a reel with a soundtrack that sounds a lot like a well-known hit. Even with no bad intent, it risks having the content taken down or challenged, right when the campaign was starting to gain traction.
There is also a market signal worth watching. According to The Guardian, Spotify announced last week that it had removed around 50 million tracks it considered AI slop from user recommendations over the past year. In other words, platforms are filtering generic machine-made content more strictly. For anyone working with AI in digital marketing, the lesson is clear: use the technology as support, with human review and a personal touch that sets the brand apart. If you want ideas for responsible use, check out 5 ways to use artificial intelligence in digital marketing.
Next steps
The case of Anthropic sued over songs by Elvis is still in its early days, and there is no known timeline for a decision. Even so, it is worth keeping a close eye on. The outcome could help define how far AI companies can go with protected works and, by extension, how content creators and brands should use these tools in creative work. In the meantime, you can get a better sense of where the industry is heading in artificial intelligence and the future of digital advertising.
