Anthropic trained Claude on illegally obtained Stanford professors' books

查看原文 / View Original 编辑 / Edit

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.

在一项2026年5月的诉讼中，联邦法官裁定，人工智能巨头Anthropic非法抓取并盗版了超过10位斯坦福大学教授的作品，用于训练其Claude模型。

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.

Anthropic此前曾利用从Tobias Wolff、Abraham Verghese、Chang-Rae Lee、Daniel Mason、Hayagreeva Rao和Myra Strober等教授处非法获取的文本来训练Claude。在“Bartz诉Anthropic案”中——该案被作者联盟（Authors Alliance）称为涉及人工智能公司的最大版权和解案——William Alsup法官裁定，Anthropic不得再通过盗版书籍来建立永久性的中央图书馆。

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.

在禁止利用盗版作品训练人工智能的同时，Alsup法官认为，合法获取书籍以训练Claude的大语言模型（LLM）属于合理使用。他将人工智能训练比作人类阅读、内化并记忆书籍主题和风格的过程。他写道：“就像任何渴望成为作家的读者一样，Anthropic的大语言模型在训练时并非为了抢先复制或取代这些作品，而是为了实现转折并创造出不同的东西。”

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.

这笔15亿美元的和解金发放给了近50万部注册作品的作者和出版商。Wolff和其他27位作者表示，这一和解金额并不足够。

“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.”

“以这种方式强迫我劳动却不支付报酬，这是一种奴隶劳动，”英语荣誉退休教授、国家艺术奖章获得者Wolff说。“他们在没有付费的情况下使用我的作品。随着时间的推移，如果劳动没有成果，他们会让作家的生活变得非常艰难。”

10 of Wolff’s publications had been used for AI training without permission.

Wolff的10部出版物在未经许可的情况下被用于人工智能训练。

“[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.

“（该和解协议）仍然让Anthropic可以相当自由地在我们的文学作品中漫游，并基本上拿走他们认为有用且有利可图的内容，”Wolff说。

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.

Wolff与英语教授Chang-rae Lee选择退出Bartz和解协议。2026年5月，他们提起了另一项非集体诉讼“Cruz诉Anthropic案”，寻求陪审团审判，要求每部侵权作品获得最高15万美元的法定赔偿金，这远超Bartz和解协议中每部作品约3000美元的赔偿额。

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.

与Bartz案中的指控类似，原告声称Anthropic从LibGen和PiLiMi等“影子图书馆”非法下载、复制并分发了他们的版权书籍，并且Anthropic通过下载并将盗版文件存储在中央图书馆的行为触犯了法律。

“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.

“我们的代理人认为，那项一揽子诉讼并未涵盖我们所遭受的全部责任，因此我们正在寻求以更具体的方式进行补救，”Wolff说。

If Wolff and his fellow authors are successful, they would gain a permanent injunction against Claude model training using their works.

如果Wolff及其同行作者胜诉，他们将获得永久禁令，禁止Claude模型使用他们的作品进行训练。

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.

斯坦福大学法学院知识产权领域的领军学者、集体诉讼原告之一Paul Goldstein承认，解决和预防人工智能公司的版权问题存在困难。

“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.

除了Bartz案和Cruz案之外，许多作者、视觉艺术家和新闻机构（包括《纽约时报》和盖蒂图片社）已经对人工智能公司提起了70多起侵权诉讼。虽然Bartz案确立了目前关于盗版书籍的规则，但用于训练大语言模型的大规模抓取人工智能模型的法律前景仍然不确定。

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.

据作者协会（The Authors Guild）首席执行官Mary Rasenberger称，该协会也在推进其他诉讼，包括针对OpenAI和微软的诉讼，作为“多管齐下策略的一部分，以确保法律明确规定人工智能公司必须为其使用的书籍获得许可”。

“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.

“许可制度允许作者和出版商获得报酬，并要求使用过滤器，以确保除非获得单独许可，否则他们的作品不会出现在输出结果中，”Rasenberger在给《每日斯坦福报》的电子邮件中写道。

The Authors Guild is working with Congress to create national legislation that will require licensing.

作者协会正在与国会合作，制定要求许可的国家立法。

“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.”

“协会已准备好迎接挑战，”Rasenberger写道。“这是我们114年来一直在做的事情，而我们今天所处的时刻，虽然充满挑战，但也为我们坚定实现使命提供了机会。”

For Wolff, this support is critical for the next generation of writers.

对于Wolff来说，这种支持对下一代作家至关重要。

“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.”

“我很幸运，作为一名作家，我能够享受我的劳动成果，”Wolff说。“我更担心我在斯坦福大学和其他地方共事过的年轻作家，在面对这些技术挑战时能否做到这一点，因为这些挑战非常难以理解和应对。”

Some authors are waging these difficult legal battles to achieve a sense of credit for their work, outside of the settlement payment.

一些作者正在进行这些艰难的法律斗争，以期在和解赔偿之外，为他们的作品获得应有的认可。

“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.”

“署名权……对绝大多数作者来说都非常重要，不仅仅是学术作者，”Goldstein写道。“绝大多数国家在书籍方面都有所谓的‘署名精神权利’，以确保作者因其作品而获得认可。美国是工业化国家中唯一没有这种精神权利的国家，这对广大作者来说是一个非常不幸的情况。”

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.

Wolff表示，随着斯坦福大学的作者们和人工智能公司继续应对训练过程中的版权挑战，双方必须在“异国他乡”中摸索前行，在创作权利与技术增长的交汇点上相遇。

April Yu (‘30) is a Columnist for Arts & Life (vol. 270) and a contributor to the News section of The Daily. She is an intended Human Biology and English major from New Jersey.

April Yu（2030届）是《艺术与生活》（第270卷）的专栏作家，也是《每日斯坦福报》新闻版的撰稿人。她来自新泽西州，计划主修人类生物学和英语。