Some authors involved in Anthropic’s $1.5 billion copyright settlement have recently encountered a surprising issue: certain publishers and literary agencies are asserting claims on part or all of the payouts these writers expected to receive.
This week, writers began sharing accounts that notifications had arrived indicating third parties were attempting to claim funds from the settlement with Anthropic, the AI firm. The legal dispute was decided last year, when a judge concluded that while AI model training on copyrighted work was not a fair use violation, actual pirating of the content was illegal. Following the official approval of the agreement in July, payment disbursements to affected rights holders were in progress.
Conflicts Surface Over Who Gets Paid
The settlement allows almost 500,000 authors to receive $3,000 for every pirated book. According to the terms, traditionally published books still in print require the payment to be divided evenly between publisher and author. When a book is self-published or the rights have reverted due to being out-of-print, the entire amount is payable to the author alone.
Nevertheless, online communities of writers and social media channels saw an uptick in complaints in recent days. Notably, April Henry, recognized for her work in mystery and thriller genres, claimed that HarperCollins had submitted a claim to part of the payout for a book returned to her control more than 17 years earlier. Furthermore, she described being alerted via a credit monitoring service that the publisher was incorrectly listed as her employer—something she disputes ever being the case.
Industry Criticism Mounts Over Claims Process
Victoria Strauss of Writers Beware noted that she had received numerous author concerns over improper claims against their settlement payments. Strauss has observed two main patterns: publishers targeting funds for works whose rights they no longer hold, and publishers seeking 100% of payouts when, by the agreement, their share is limited to just 50%.
Despite the volume of complaints, Strauss advised not to immediately blame malice, suggesting mismanagement of records could explain much of the trouble. She mentioned that some publishers had admitted to errors and reached out to Anthropic intending to correct any mistakes.
Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild, gave a similar perspective in an interview with The New York Times, rejecting the notion that publishers were broadly attempting to defraud writers. She attributed most of the confusion to poor records and the challenging logistics of the claims process.
Even with these cautions, Strauss remarked that the level and consistency of issues being raised appear to go beyond run-of-the-mill glitches from managing such a broad settlement, hinting at deeper, industry-wide problems.
Authors Confront Agency Claims
The situation has also involved literary agencies, many of which, as Strauss points out, do not actually hold copyright interests in the books concerned. She reports several instances of agencies trying to stake a claim to authors’ settlement funds.
Responding bluntly, Courtney Milan (also known as Heidi Bond and a former law professor) expressed her disapproval of agents pursuing a portion of the payments in her post on Bluesky: “I do not REMOTELY think they should do this, what the fuck, stop that shit!”
Both Milan and the Authors Guild have provided guidance for authors disputing how their payments are split. Central to these conflicts is the rights reversion date; authors must demonstrate that rights had reverted before August 10, 2022—the “download date” noted in the settlement—to claim the full compensation themselves.
Settlement Exposes Deeper Record Management Problems
Although Strauss admits that she hears only a “peek through a small crack in a massive wall,” she argues that the frequency and scope of complaints may reflect systemic shortcomings in record-keeping throughout the publishing industry. With over $1.5 billion and hundreds of thousands of claimants involved, advocates for authors are pushing for clearer, better-managed procedures to guarantee fair allocation of the settlement’s substantial funds.