Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC — Entry #918: CLERK'S NOTICE RE: QUESTIONS FOR 10/21/2026 MOTIONS HEARING

Case 5:24-cv-03811-EKL            Document 918 Filed 10/23/26            Page 1 of 5      PageID #:
                                                   135264


                                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                                    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


           CONCORD MUSIC GROUP, INC., et al.,                Case No.24-cv-03811-EKL
                          Plaintiffs,
                                                             CLERK’S NOTICE RE: QUESTIONS
                     v.                                      FOR 10/21/2026 MOTIONS HEARING
           ANTHROPIC PBC,
                          Defendant.


                 The Court issued questions to the parties in advance of the October 21, 2026 hearing on
        the Motions for Summary Judgment and Daubert motions. The parties have made the Court
        aware of public interest in these questions.
                 Attached are the questions posed to the parties.


        Dated: October 23, 2026
                                                           Mark B. Busby
                                                           Clerk, United States District Court


                                                           By: ________________________
                                                           Laura Thomson, Deputy Clerk to the
                                                           Honorable EUMI K. LEE


Clerk’s-Notice_CRD
rev. June 2018


Case 5:24-cv-03811-EKL         Document 918 Filed 10/23/26            Page 2 of 5       PageID #:
                                         135265


                           Questions for October 21, 2026 Hearing


Counsel:

This case is scheduled for an in-person hearing tomorrow, October 21, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The
Court will hear argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and Daubert
motions according to the schedule and format previously described. The Court provides the
following questions to focus argument, but the parties are welcome to address any aspect of the
pending motions or the record.

Fair Use

The Court is inclined to analyze the fair use defense separately as to each “use” listed below
based on the acts of infringement alleged in the complaint. See Andy Warhol Foundation for the
Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508, 525 (2023) (focusing the fair use analysis on the
“allegedly infringing use”); see also Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 45, 162, ECF No. 728 (“SAC”)
(“Each infringement by Anthropic in and to Publishers’ musical compositions constitutes a
separate and distinct act of infringement.”).

   •   First, the use of the Works in Suit during the training process. See, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 60, 75-
       76.

   •   Second, Claude outputs that contain verbatim copies of Publishers’ lyrics. See, e.g., SAC
       ¶ 77.

   •   Third, Claude outputs that contain mash-ups (what Publishers also refer to as
       “derivatives”) of Publishers’ lyrics. See, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 91-94.

   •   Fourth, Claude outputs that contain AI-generated song lyrics (what the parties refer to as
       “synthetic” or “new” lyrics). See, e.g., SAC ¶ 91 (alleging the existence of prompts for
       “new” song lyrics and output that “relies” on Publishers’ lyrics).

Factor 1:

   •   Publishers argue that “the creativity copyright fosters is the product of human
       authorship,” but AI generates “uncopyrightable digital facsimiles of human authorship.”
       Publishers’ Mot. at 19-20, ECF No. 809. For the fair use defense to apply, must the
       secondary use be a copyrightable work? To the extent a secondary use adds new
       expression to the original, must that new expression be copyrightable to be
       transformative?

Factor 3:

   •   How should the Court evaluate Anthropic’s position that there is “nothing uniquely
       valuable about Publishers’ lyrics relative to other training data”? Anthropic Mot. at 20,
       ECF No. 838.


                                                1


Case 5:24-cv-03811-EKL         Document 918 Filed 10/23/26             Page 3 of 5      PageID #:
                                         135266


Factor 4:

   •   Regarding Publishers’ market dilution theory:

            o Publishers argue that it is not fair use to “exploit Publishers’ Works to generate an
              endless stream of AI-generated lyrics that compete with Publishers, dilute the
              market and royalty streams for their Works, and, ultimately, threaten to render
              human artistry ‘obsolete’ altogether.” Publishers’ Mot. at 19. In the but-for
              world in which Anthropic is required to license the Works in Suit, would Claude
              still have the ability to generate an endless stream of AI-generated lyrics that
              compete with Publishers, and also with artists unaffiliated with Publishers?

            o What constitutes unfair output of “synthetic” lyrics? Does this theory extend to
              any lyrics that are “in the same genre or style” of the Works in Suit? Publishers’
              Reply at 24, ECF No. ECF No. 877.

            o What is the connection between the examples of dilution or displacement cited in
              the record and the Works in Suit? See, e.g., Publishers’ Mot. at 33-34 (discussing
              Rick Beato example).

            o Address how the market dilution theory is consistent with Publishers’ discussion
              of the scope of relevant market effects in the motion to exclude Nagaraj. See ECF
              No. 890 at 3 (“[U]nder 17 U.S.C. § 107, the relevant market harm inquiry must
              analyze the effect of Anthropic’s unauthorized copying and display of Publishers’
              lyrics upon the ‘potential market for or value of’ Publishers’ lyrics.”).

            o How should courts draw the line between harm to an original work arising from
              “indirect substitution” and harm arising from competition with a new work? See
              Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2025).

            o If the market dilution theory is not a cognizable market effect, may the Court still
              consider the potential displacement of human creators when evaluating the
              potential public benefits and harms of Claude training on the Works in Suit? See
              Publishers’ Mot. at 34 (claiming that “the flood of AI-generated music will also
              ‘crowd out’ emerging songwriters and disincentivize future potential songwriters
              from creating new works”).

   •   Does a public benefit need to be expression-based to be cognizable in the fair use
       analysis?

            o See Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2015)
              (“[T]ransformative uses tend to favor a fair use finding because a transformative
              use is one that communicates something new and different from the original or
              expands its utility, thus serving copyright’s overall objective of contributing to
              public knowledge.” (emphasis added)).

            o Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87, 91-92, 97 (2d Cir. 2014).


                                                 2


Case 5:24-cv-03811-EKL         Document 918 Filed 10/23/26             Page 4 of 5       PageID #:
                                         135267


          o Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A] search
            engine provides social benefit by incorporating an original work into a new work,
            namely, an electronic reference tool.”).

   •   Are the benefits of Claude legally cognizable in the fair use analysis if there is only a
       general relationship between using lyrics to train and Claude’s resulting capabilities, but
       lyrics are fungible as a training source? If Claude was trained on lyrics and thus has
       certain capabilities, but could have been trained on other data, are the purported public
       benefits of Claude attributable to training on lyrics?

Trial and manageability

   •   How would Publishers identify each act of alleged infringement based on output that
       involves less than a verbatim reproduction of a Work in Suit (i.e., mash-ups, derivatives,
       and “synthetic” lyrics)? Publishers’ Reply at 17.

          o One example Anthropic cites as fair use included the reproduction of partial
            lyrics. Anthropic Fact No. 45, ECF No. 845-1. Publishers claim that this output
            “is not based on the written text of Publishers’ lyrics”; instead, it was purportedly
            based on “commentary about the song from its training data.” Publishers’ Reply
            at 17. How is this reasoning consistent with Publishers’ theory that output of
            “synthetic” lyrics is traceable to training on the Works in Suit specifically?

   •   If the Court finds that there are genuine disputes of fact with respect to whether certain
       categories of output (especially mash-ups or so-called “derivative” works) are fair use,
       what questions should be presented to a jury? How would trial proceed given the number
       of Works in Suit and the many acts of alleged infringement? See Anthropic Mot. at 9, 23
       (“[T]he fact-intensive question of whether particular outputs are fair use is for the jury in
       the first instance.”).

   •   As to the verbatim reproduction, what is the significance of the lack of deposit copies?

Daubert Motions

   •   Motion to exclude Smith

          o The parties should focus on the parts of Anthropic’s motion that challenge
            Smith’s opinions regarding harm to past and future licensing. Mot. at 6-9, ECF
            No. 819. Address the methodology and bases for Smith’s opinions.

   •   Motion to exclude Nagaraj

          o The parties should focus on Publishers’ motion to exclude Nagaraj’s opinion
            regarding the purported “market for all of the data needed to train a general-
            purpose LLM.” Nagaraj Report ¶¶ 8-9, ECF No. 890-1.

          o Anthropic: According to what legal authority may an expert opine that the
            “correct” market is an impossible one?


                                                 3


Case 5:24-cv-03811-EKL       Document 918 Filed 10/23/26             Page 5 of 5      PageID #:
                                       135268


          o React to the following statement: Nagaraj’s methodology is flawed because, in a
            but-for world that required licensing of training data, he assumes that Claude (and
            LLMs generally) must exist in substantially the same way that they exist in the
            real world. Nagaraj failed to consider that, in the but-for world, the market for
            training data may be viable, but Claude and other “general-purpose” LLMs would
            be trained on different data and perhaps in a different manner.

          o Publishers: Regarding Nagaraj’s opinion on the market for licensing lyrics to
            train an LLM, why is absurdity a basis to exclude an expert opinion under
            Daubert or Federal Rule of Evidence 702? What authority do Publishers have for
            this argument other than the In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation case?

          o Anthropic: Regarding Nagaraj’s opinion on public benefits, identify the portions
            of his reports or testimony that tie these benefits to Claude specifically (rather
            than AI generally).

   •   Motion to exclude Dennis

          o Publishers: How can the Court fulfill its gatekeeping responsibility to assess the
            reliability of Dennis’s methodology if Publishers’ counsel created the sample sets
            that Dennis evaluated, and Dennis does not know counsel’s method for creating
            them? How can Anthropic fairly cross-examine Dennis at trial under these
            circumstances?

          o Anthropic: Do the arguments in the motion require exclusion of Dennis’s
            opinions regarding Anthropic employees’ prompting of Claude and the lack of
            CMI observed in the records that Dennis reviewed? Why?

   •   Motion to exclude Davis

          o The parties should focus on Davis’s opinions regarding fair use factor four.

          o Anthropic: Why is Davis’s testimony regarding Publishers’ financial records
            additive to testimony from fact witnesses?

          o Anthropic: What expert methodology did Davis apply in opining on the
            “potential ways that generative AI may be beneficial to the market for licensing
            lyrics”? Davis Report at 53, ECF No. 887-1.

   •   Motion to exclude Stokes

          o Publishers: Even if Stokes’s opinions about lyrics in general are overbroad and
            irrelevant, why is his testimony irrelevant if he applies music theory to evaluate
            the lyrics of the Works in Suit specifically?

          o Anthropic: Identify the portions of Stokes’ opening report that connect the
            purported benefits of AI generally to Claude in particular.


                                               4