Companion posts for Gavel Drop video episodes.

On October 23, the companies and families behind 274 Elvis Presley songs sued AI company Anthropic in federal court in California. The case is ABG EPE IP LLC, et al. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:26-cv-12473 (N.D. Cal.). It was filed by Nashville counsel, Richard Busch and Mark Block of Adams & Reese.

What they claim

The complaint pleads three counts: copyright infringement, circumvention of access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201), and removal of copyright management information, meaning titles and songwriter credits (§ 1202). The statutory-damages demand is about $41.1 million on the infringement count alone, and about $48.6 million across all three by my arithmetic. The plaintiffs also want an injunction and an accounting of Anthropic’s training data.

The allegations are that Anthropic trained its Claude models on scraped and pirated text containing the lyrics, stripped out the credits in the process, and that Claude can still produce lyrics or derivative versions of them despite output filters. Anthropic will contest all of it, and much of the complaint is pleaded on information and belief. The public copy of the complaint does not include Exhibit A, the list of the 274 works. The complaint also lists three related music cases against Anthropic pending in the same court: two Concord actions and one brought by BMG.

The part that surprised me

Tennessee has two laws with Elvis’s fingerprints on them: the 1984 Personal Rights Protection Act, and the ELVIS Act of 2024, which was written to stop AI voice and likeness cloning. Neither is in the complaint. The plaintiffs sued on copyright alone, even though the Elvis name has long been one of the most vigorously policed in the business. Authentic Brands, which controls Elvis Presley Enterprises, sent cease-and-desist letters to Las Vegas wedding chapels in 2022 over Elvis-themed ceremonies.

My read is that these plaintiffs hold compositions, Claude is a text model, and the ELVIS Act’s strongest provisions concern voice and likeness. But the complaint alleges users ask Claude for songs “in the style of” artists in this catalog, and a future dispute over audio output could put the persona-rights tools back on the table. For our NIL practice, the lesson is that copyright and persona rights are separate toolboxes, and a catalog or estate may need both.

What to do now

  1. Register your works, and register on time. Statutory damages depend on it.
  2. Read your lyric licenses. The credit-stripping theory leans on licenses that require lyric sites to show titles and writers. If yours don’t, you’re missing a hook.
  3. Update your name, image, likeness and voice paperwork. Make sure grants reach voice and AI replicas, and that someone with standing holds the rights after death.
  4. Watch the docket. Anthropic’s response, and whether this case is related to the Concord cases before Judge Lee, will tell us a lot.

Read and listen

The full analysis, including Anthropic’s best defenses and my take, is on Substack: read the note where you’ll so find a copy of the COMPLAINT (see direct link below).  The Gavel Drop episode is here: watch it on YouTube or just click below.  You can read the full complaint here: ABG EPE IP LLC, et al. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (PDF).

Related Videos

Gavel Drop episode on the Music Row Dealmakers YouTube channel

This post is general information, not legal advice. Shrum & Associates, PC represents clients across the Music Row community in entertainment, trademark, contract and NIL matters, with over 80 years of collective experience.

Disclosure: Anthropic is the defendant in this case. This post was prepared with help from Claude, Anthropic’s AI model.

In 1963, two young Louisiana songwriters signed away the rights to a song that would become a 1966 hit for the Swingin’ Medallions: “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love).” Nearly sixty years later, co-writer Cyril Vetter used federal copyright termination to take the song back. The question that followed has big money riding on it: when a songwriter reclaims a song, does he get back only the U.S. rights, or the rights everywhere in the world?

On October 19, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a Fifth Circuit ruling that answered “everywhere.” Here is what happened, what it does and does not settle, and what it could mean for songwriters, artists, estates and publishers on Music Row.

A quick refresher on copyright termination

The Copyright Act gives authors and their heirs a one-time chance to undo old deals. For grants signed on or after January 1, 1978, Section 203 opens a termination window that generally starts 35 years after the grant. For songs whose copyrights were secured before 1978 under a pre-1978 grant, Section 304(c) opens a window 56 years after the copyright was secured.

The process is strict. A written notice must be served at least two and no more than ten years before the effective date, and it must be recorded with the U.S. Copyright Office before that date. Works made for hire and grants made by will cannot be terminated. Derivative works made before termination, such as an existing master recording, can generally keep being used under the old deal, but new uses revert to the author or heirs.

What happened in the Vetter case

According to court records and press coverage, Vetter served his termination notice in 2019 with a 2022 effective date, then sued the publisher that had acquired the song’s original publishing company. A federal court in Louisiana ruled that Vetter and his company owned the song worldwide. On January 12, 2026, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that terminations under Section 304(c), together with renewal rights under the 1909 Act, return worldwide ownership, not just U.S. rights, and that this is consistent with international treaty obligations.

Major publishers, by then holding the other side of the dispute, asked the Supreme Court to step in, arguing the ruling upended decades of industry practice. Four Justices (Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson) took no part, leaving the Court without its six-Justice quorum. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2109, when the Court cannot reach a case in the next Term, it must affirm the lower court’s judgment, with the same effect as an affirmance by an equally divided Court.

What the order does and does not settle

For Mr. Vetter, the ruling stands: he owns his share of “Double Shot” worldwide. But the Supreme Court did not decide the legal question on the merits, and an affirmance of this kind does not create nationwide precedent. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion is binding in federal courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Courts elsewhere, including the Sixth Circuit, which covers Tennessee, are not bound by it and could reach a different answer in a future case. Contract language, choice-of-law clauses and foreign courts’ views of U.S. termination may also come into play.

Why it matters on Music Row

International income is a growing share of what a song earns, from foreign performance royalties to streaming in markets around the globe. If termination brings back foreign rights too, a reclaimed catalog can be worth considerably more to a writer or estate. On the other side, publishers and catalog buyers may need to rethink how they value older songs whose termination windows are open or approaching, and they may look harder at deal terms and forum choices.

Practical steps

  • Inventory your old deals. List every publishing, co-publishing and administration agreement, with signing dates and the songs each one covers.
  • Map your termination windows. Calculate when each window opens and the earliest date a notice can be served. Missing the window can mean losing the right.
  • Look at the “for hire” question. Termination does not apply to works made for hire, so check how each agreement characterized the work.
  • Think about where you would sue. Until another appeals court or the Supreme Court weighs in, where a dispute is heard may matter.
  • Estates, coordinate early. When an author has died, a majority interest of the statutory heirs generally must act together.
  • Buyers and publishers, update diligence. Factor termination timing and possible worldwide reversion into catalog valuations and deal terms.

Thinking about getting your songs back?

Termination is one of the most valuable rights a songwriter has, and one of the easiest to lose through a missed deadline or a defective notice. If you are a writer, an heir, or a business that owns older catalog, our Nashville team is glad to review your agreements and help you plan. Contact Shrum Disney & Associates to start the conversation.

Related video

Barry Neil Shrum breaks down the Supreme Court’s Vetter order on the Music Row Dealmakers Gavel Drop: Breaking: 5 Justices and a Double Shot: The Supreme Court, a $1 Song & Who Gets the World Rights.

Further reading

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your situation, contact Shrum Disney & Associates or call 615.338.5130.

Related Video: Who Owns an AI Song?

On Music Row Dealmakers, entertainment attorney Barry Neil Shrum breaks down what songwriters actually own when they use AI. Subscribe for more.


AI music tools have moved from novelty to normal studio equipment. Writers use them to brainstorm lyrics, producers use them to generate stems, and some tracks are generated almost entirely from a text prompt. The legal question every creator is asking: who owns the result?

The rule: copyright requires a human author

The U.S. Copyright Office has consistently held that copyright protects only material created by a human being. The courts agree. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Office’s refusal to register an artwork created autonomously by an AI system, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case on March 2, 2026. For now, the human-authorship requirement is settled law.

Prompts are not enough

In January 2025, the Copyright Office released Part 2 of its report on copyright and artificial intelligence, focused on copyrightability. Its key conclusions:

  • Prompts alone generally do not make you the author of the output, because the user does not control how the AI expresses the idea.
  • Human creative contributions remain protected. Lyrics you write, melodies you compose, and your own performance are yours, even if AI was used elsewhere in the work.
  • Selection, arrangement and modification count. Creatively choosing, arranging or substantially editing AI-generated material can be protected, though only the human contribution is.
  • AI as a tool is fine. Using AI to assist (for example, mixing, mastering or idea generation) does not disqualify a work that reflects sufficient human authorship.

How to register AI-assisted music

When you apply to register a work containing more than a minimal amount of AI-generated material, the Copyright Office requires you to disclose it and to describe the human-authored contribution you are claiming. In practice:

  1. Identify what you created (lyrics, melody, arrangement, performance) and claim that.
  2. Exclude AI-generated material in the “material excluded” portion of the application.
  3. Do not over-claim. A registration that hides AI-generated content can be challenged or cancelled later.

The training-data fight

A separate question is whether AI companies may train on copyrighted recordings without permission. In 2024 the major labels sued AI music services Suno and Udio. Several of those claims have since settled into licensing partnerships, while others remain in active litigation in federal court. The outcome will shape what AI tools can lawfully offer, and what licensing income may flow back to rights holders.

Practical tips for creators

  • Keep records. Save drafts, session files and notes showing your creative choices.
  • Read the tool’s terms. Some AI platforms claim rights in outputs or restrict commercial use.
  • Disclose to collaborators and labels. Many publishing and recording agreements now include AI representations and warranties.
  • Note AI use on your split sheet. It will matter at registration time.

We advise songwriters, producers, labels and technology companies on copyright registration, AI policies and licensing. If you are unsure how to protect an AI-assisted project, reach out before you release it.

Further reading

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your situation, contact Shrum Disney & Associates or call 615.338.5130.