Andrea Bartz, the acclaimed thriller author known for her feminist-leaning psychological novels, has made history as one of three named plaintiffs in a landmark copyright lawsuit against the artificial intelligence company Anthropic. The case, which resulted in a $1.5 billion settlement, is the largest copyright settlement on record and brings attention to the growing tension between technology and intellectual property.
Fighting Back Against A.I. Infringement
Bartz first discovered her work was being exploited in the summer of 2023, when a report revealed that pirated books were being used to train machine learning models. After searching a database, she found her own novels among the texts included without permission. "I felt incredibly violated and upset", she said.
This violation fueled her determination to take legal action. Bartz, along with nonfiction authors Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson, joined forces in a class-action lawsuit targeting Anthropic for illegally acquiring and storing hundreds of thousands of books to train its A.I. programs. Though the three authors had not known each other previously, they soon became close allies. "We were kind of tossed into the trenches together", Bartz remarked.
Over the course of the case, the three plaintiffs endured an invasive discovery process that included combing through their contracts, emails, and social media posts. "We’ve all served as a periodic sanity check for each other", Johnson said of their shared experience.
A Record Settlement, But Mixed Outcomes
The lawsuit moved swiftly through the courts, culminating in a decision that Anthropic had indeed violated copyright law by downloading and storing pirated books. However, the judge also ruled that as long as books are not stolen, their use for training A.I. systems constitutes "fair use" due to the transformative nature of the technology – a decision that authors and publishers continue to dispute.
The settlement agreement requires Anthropic to pay $3,000 per illegally downloaded work, a sum that may be split with publishers depending on individual contracts. While the $1.5 billion figure has drawn widespread attention, some have criticized the deal for falling short of adequately compensating authors. Bartz noted that the settlement sparked confusion, with some assuming that the lead plaintiffs had become multimillionaires overnight. In reality, they may receive a service award of up to $50,000, in addition to compensation for their own works.
"This feels like a really important first corrective step", Bartz said, though she acknowledged that the fight for authors’ rights is far from over. "It’s not the end of the battle."
The Human Cost and Industry Implications
Bartz’s involvement in the case came at a significant personal cost. The time and energy she devoted to the lawsuit delayed work on her sixth novel, a horror-thriller hybrid about a haunted apartment, and on revisions for a screenplay adaptation of one of her short stories. "It was a big sacrifice", she admitted, but one she was willing to make to protect the future of the publishing industry. "I felt it was really important for the industry, for authors, and for readers who want their favorite authors to be able to continue doing this."
While the settlement does not set a legal precedent for other A.I. copyright lawsuits, some industry experts view it as a potential deterrent for tech companies. "At least it sends messages to the A.I. companies that you can’t use pirated works", said Mary Rasenberger, chief executive of the Authors Guild.
As Bartz reflects on the experience, she sees the potential for her legal battle to inspire future creative work. "This case has left a big emotional footprint on me", she said. "So it’s not ridiculous to think that somehow, that could turn into something fictional."
For now, Bartz remains focused on balancing her advocacy for authors’ rights with her own creative endeavors, even as the broader debate over A.I. and copyright continues to evolve. "We were now speaking on behalf of all people who make books", she said of her role in the case – a responsibility she embraced with determination and hope for the future.
