AI巨头Anthropic非法刮去并盗取了超过10名斯坦福教授的作品来训练其Claude模型，联邦法官在2026年5月的一起诉讼中作出裁决。
Anthropic此前曾就从教授托比亚斯·沃尔夫，亚伯拉罕·韦尔格塞，长-雷·李，丹尼尔·梅森，哈瓦列娃·拉奥和米拉·斯特罗伯非法获取的文本对Claude进行了培训。 在"作者联盟"称之为涉及一家AI公司的最大版权协议"的"Bartz v. Anthropic"中，法官威廉·阿尔苏普(William Alsup)裁定，Anthropic不能再盗版书籍来创建永久的中央图书馆。
Alsup一方面阻止了训练AI的盗版工作，另一方面却认为合法地收购书籍来训练Claude的大语言模型(LLMs)是公平使用。 他将人工智能培训与人类如何阅读，内化并记住一本书的主题和风格相提并论。 Anthropic的"LLMs"在作品上接受训练
15亿美元的和解投向了近50万所注册作品的作者和出版商。 Wolff和其他27名作者表示
称 Wolff是英国荣誉教授、国家艺术奖章获得者。 他们利用我的工作，他们将让作家的生活变得非常艰难
Wolff的10种出版物未经允许就被用于AI培训。
“Anthropic仍然可以自由地浏览我们的文献
沃尔夫与英语教授常雷·李一起选择出巴兹和解。 2026年5月，他们单独提起了非阶级诉讼Cruz诉Anthropic案，要求陪审团审判每件违法作品的全部法定损害赔偿最高可达15万美元，超过了巴兹解决方案提供的每件作品约3000美元的损失。
与Bartz的声称类似，原告指称，Anthropic从LibGen和PiLimi等“Shadow图书馆”非法下载、复制并分发了他们的有版权的书籍，Anthropic在中央图书馆下载并储存被盗取的文件，违反了法律。
我们的agents认为
如果Wolff和他的同名作者成功，他们将获得永久禁令，禁止使用他们的作品进行Claude模式训练。
保罗·戈德斯坦(Paul Goldstein)是一位斯坦福法律知识产权领域的主要学者，也是参与集体诉讼的原告之一，他承认解决和防止AI公司版权问题的难度。
Goldstein在一封给《每日报》的电子邮件中写道，“在任何培训事件中，可能复制数百万个有版权的作品，而平台从每出作品的版权所有者，甚至任何一出作品的版权所有者那里获得许可证是完全不切实际的。”
在巴兹和克勒兹之外，包括"纽约时报"和"Getty Images"在内的多位作者，视觉艺术家和新闻机构已经对AI公司提起了70多起侵权诉讼。 虽然巴兹确立了现行的平面图书规则，但用于训练LLMs的大规模刮取AI模型的法律前途仍不确定。
Authors Guild还正在提起其他诉讼，包括针对OpenAI和Microsoft的诉讼，作为“确保法律明确AI公司必须为其使用的书籍发放许可证的多管齐下办法”的一部分，据The Authors Guild首席执行官Mary Rasenberger称。
Rasenberger在给《每日报》的电子邮件中写道
Authors Guild正在与国会合作，制定需要许可证的国家立法。
Rasenberger写道，“这是我们114年来一直在做的事情，我们今天所处的时刻虽然具有挑战性，但也为我们坚定地实现我们的使命提供了机会。”
对沃尔夫来说，这种支持对下一代作家至关重要。
Wolff 称：“我很幸运能有一个作家的生活，“我更担心在斯坦福和其他地方工作的年轻作家们能够面对这些技术挑战做到这一点，因为他们很难把握和战斗。”
一些作者正在展开这些艰难的法律斗争，以便在支付和解款之外，实现对其工作的赞扬感。
Goldstein写道：“归属。.....对绝大多数作者非常重要，而不仅仅是学术作者。” " 大多数国家在书上都有所谓的`道德归属权 '，以确保作者的作品受到赞扬。 美国单独在工业化国家中，没有这种道德权利，这对作者来说是一个非常不幸的情况。”
由于斯坦福的作者和AI公司继续为培训导航版权挑战，双方必须通向“外地”,Wolff 称，在创造权和技术成长的交汇点相会。
本文由 AI宝库自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
AI giant Anthropic illegally scraped and pirated the work of over 10 Stanford professors to train its Claude models, a federal judge ruled in a May 2026 lawsuit.
Anthropic previously trained Claude on illegally obtained texts from professors Tobias Wolff, Abraham Verghese, Chang-Rae Lee, Daniel Mason, Hayagreeva Rao and Myra Strober. In Bartz v. Anthropic, which the Authors Alliance calls the largest copyright settlement involving an AI company, Judge William Alsup ruled that Anthropic could no longer pirate books to create a permanent central library.
While blocking the piracy of work to train AI, Alsup justified the legal acquisition of books to train Claude’s Large Language Models (LLMs) as fair use. He compared AI training to how humans can read, internalize and remember a book’s themes and style. “Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic’s LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different,” he wrote.
The $1.5 billion settlement went to authors and publishers of nearly 500,000 registered works. Wolff and 27 other authors say the settlement isn’t enough.
“To put me to work that way, without remittance, is a form of slave labor,” said Wolff, professor emeritus of English and winner of the National Medal of Arts. “They’re using my work without paying for it. As time goes on, they’re going to make the lives of writers very difficult if there’s no fruit to their labor.”
10 of Wolff’s publications had been used for AI training without permission.
“[The settlement] still gives Anthropic pretty free rein to roam through our literature and basically take what they think will be useful and profitable for them,” Wolff said.
Wolff, along with English professor Chang-rae Lee, opted out of the Bartz settlement. In May 2026, they filed the separate non-class lawsuit Cruz v. Anthropic, seeking a jury trial for full statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work, surpassing the approximate $3,000 of damages per work offered in the Bartz settlement.
Similar to the claims in Bartz, the plaintiffs allege that Anthropic illegally downloaded, reproduced and distributed their copyrighted books from “shadow libraries” like LibGen and PiLiMi, and that Anthropic broke the law by downloading and storing the pirated files in a central library.
“Our agents didn’t think the blanket lawsuit covered quite enough of the liability to us and are seeking redress in more particular ways,” Wolff said.
If Wolff and his fellow authors are successful, they would gain a permanent injunction against Claude model training using their works.
Paul Goldstein, a Stanford Law leading scholar in intellectual property and one of the plaintiffs represented in the class action, acknowledged the difficulty of addressing and preventing copyright issues for AI companies.
“The essential problem … is what economists call ‘transaction costs,’” Goldstein wrote in an email to The Daily. “Millions of individual copyrighted works may be copied in the course of any training incident, and it’s simply impracticable for the platform to obtain licenses from the copyright owner of every — or, indeed, any — single work.”
Outside of Bartz and Cruz, many authors, visual artists and news outlets, including The New York Times and Getty Images, have filed over 70 infringement lawsuits against AI companies. While Bartz established the current rule for pirating books, the legal future of mass scraping AI models used to train LLMs remains uncertain.
The Authors Guild is also pursuing other lawsuits, including one against OpenAI and Microsoft, as part of a “multi-pronged approach to ensure that the law is clear that AI companies must license the books they use,” according to The Authors Guild Chief Executive Officer Mary Rasenberger.
“Licensing allows authors and publishers to be compensated and to require the use of filters that ensure their works do not appear in outputs unless separately licensed,” Rasenberger wrote in an email to The Daily.
The Authors Guild is working with Congress to create national legislation that will require licensing.
“The Guild is up for the challenge,” Rasenberger wrote. “This is something we have been doing for 114 years, and the moment we are in today, while challenging, also presents opportunities for us to firmly realize our mission.”
For Wolff, this support is critical for the next generation of writers.
“I’m lucky that I’m able to have a life as a writer where I enjoy the profits of my work,” Wolff said. “I worry much more about the young writers I’ve worked with at Stanford and elsewhere being able to do that in the face of these technological challenges, because they’re very hard to grasp and to combat.”
Some authors are waging these difficult legal battles to achieve a sense of credit for their work, outside of the settlement payment.
“Attribution … is very important to the vast majority of authors, and not just academic authors,” Goldstein wrote. “The great majority of countries have something called the ‘moral right of attribution’ on the books to ensure that authors are credited for their work. The U.S., alone among industrialized nations, has no such moral right, which is a terribly unfortunate situation for authors generally.”
As Stanford authors and AI companies continue to navigate copyright challenges for training, both sides must navigate a “foreign land,” Wolff said, meeting at the intersection of creative rights and technological growth.
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Gem Box. All rights belong to the original author.