Rightsholders tied to Elvis Presley’s catalog allege that Anthropic trained its Claude models on lyrics to 274 songs without authorization or payment. The suit is one of several that put the publishing administration contract, not the streaming statement, at the centre of how independent songwriters get paid for AI use.
Two revenue pools, one catalogue
Streaming is the pool that pays today. Spotify reported 788 million users and 306 million subscribers for Q3 2026, which means about 39% of its users pay a subscription. The company also posted growth in revenue, paid subscriptions and advertising, and substantial profit growth. The subscription base is the funding source for per-stream royalties, and it is still expanding.
The second pool is training use, and right now it is a dispute rather than a revenue line. Rightsholders allege that lyrics and compositions were copied into AI models with no licence and no payment. The two pools draw on the same songs, but they are collected through different contracts and by different parties.
What the lawsuits actually target
The claims are about the written work, not the recording. The Presley-related suit against Anthropic is framed around lyrics to 274 songs. Reservoir Media has filed separate copyright suits against Suno and Anthropic over compositions and lyrics used to train AI models. Suno also faces another lawsuit in the same period.
Two features matter for a small catalogue. First, the unit of claim is the song, counted individually: 274 songs is a list of works, not a percentage of a catalogue. Second, the plaintiffs are parties that control publishing rights. A master-side payout from a distributor does not reach this dispute, because the distributor typically delivers recordings to a digital service provider (DSP) and holds nothing in the lyrics.
Why the administration grant is the control point
Publishing deals are consolidating authority in a few administrators. My Chemical Romance signed an exclusive worldwide administration deal with Warner Chappell Music covering its existing catalogue and future works. Separately, MAIA Universe announced rights partnerships with BMG, Kobalt and Warner, along with a strategic investment and an improved operating model with the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society (MCPS).
The mechanism is in the wording of the grant. An exclusive worldwide administration deal assigns the right to license and collect for the works it covers, and the phrase “existing and future” extends that to songs not yet written. If the grant covers all uses without carve-outs, the administrator is the party positioned to license a training use or join a claim, and the songwriter may have no say in either. If the grant lists specific uses, such as sync, mechanicals and performance, AI training may sit outside it, and the rights stay with the writer.
Neither outcome is good or bad on its own. A broad grant gives a larger counterparty with litigation resources. A narrow grant leaves the writer holding rights with no one equipped to enforce them. The risk is not knowing which one you signed.
Contract checks before the next signature
- Definition of covered uses. Find whether the grant says “all uses” or names them, and whether machine learning, training or model development appears anywhere.
- Authority to settle. Check whether the administrator can license or settle a training claim without your approval, and whether you get notice.
- Share of AI income. Confirm that any payment for training use is treated as royalty income split under your existing terms, not as an administrator’s fee or expense recoupment.
- Future works. If the deal sweeps in songs not yet written, find the reversion date and whether new songs can be excluded by notice.
- Lyric inventory. Count the songs in your catalogue that carry original lyrics. That figure is your equivalent of the 274, and it is the number any licensor or claimant will ask for first.
The decision for independents
Most independent writers will not be plaintiffs. The practical question is whether a future licensing market for training use, if one forms, pays you or the party holding your administration rights. That is decided by a contract signed years earlier, usually for other reasons.
Before renewing or signing, ask the administrator in writing how it treats AI training use under the existing grant, and get the answer attached to the agreement. For deals already in force, pull the covered-uses clause and the future-works term this quarter. If the grant is silent, that silence is the thing to resolve, because the suits now being filed show where the dispute lands: on the lyrics and compositions, and on whoever holds the right to act for them.
