OpenIA and Anthropic bosses refuse to join hands at event A federal judge in San Francisco approved this Monday (20) the historic US$1.5 billion (R$7.66 billion) settlement reached by artificial intelligence company Anthropic to end a class action lawsuit filed by a group of authors who accused it of improperly using their books to train the AI ??chatbot Claude. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted final approval to the settlement, considered the largest ever in a U.S. copyright case. The lawsuit is one of dozens filed by copyright holders - including writers and media outlets - against technology companies for using protected works in training large language models, and is the first major case in the country to reach a settlement. The judge responsible for the case at the time, William Alsup, now retired, had given preliminary approval to the agreement in September last year. Artificial intelligence gains space as a competitive differentiator in companies Artificial Intelligence The authors sued Anthropic in 2024, alleging that the company - supported by Amazon and Alphabet - used pirated versions of its books, without authorization, to teach Claude how to respond to user commands. Does Claude fall under 'fair use'? In June last year, Alsup decided that the use of the works to train Claude fell within the concept of fair use provided for in American legislation. However, it concluded that Anthropic violated copyright by storing more than 7 million pirated books in a "central library", which would not necessarily be used for training artificial intelligence. The trial that would define how much the company should pay for the alleged violations was scheduled to begin in December last year. Compensations could reach hundreds of billions of dollars. According to a lawyer representing the authors, during a hearing held this Monday, writers and other copyright holders presented claims relating to more than 92% of the approximately 480,000 works covered by the agreement. Anthropic Reuters Value is seen as insufficient The agreement, however, also generated criticism. Some authors argue that the amount is insufficient, that the authors' lawyers will receive a disproportionate share of the compensation, or that certain copyright holders were unfairly excluded from the negotiation. Furthermore, some writers and publishers decided not to adhere to the agreement and filed their own lawsuits against Anthropic, which are still ongoing.