A federal court can award $750 to $30,000 for each infringed work in a standard copyright case. For willful infringement, that amount can reach $150,000 per work. Each work counts separately, so a lawsuit over 30 songs could result in 30 separate awards.
Our research team compared the Copyright Act with federal court records from 2007 through July 2026. The tables below start with the statutory ranges, then compare them with actual jury awards and the largest copyright class settlement on record.
Key Takeaways:
- Standard statutory damages run $750 to $30,000 per work, while statutory damages for willful infringement range from $750 to $150,000 per work.
- Statutory damages generally require copyright registration before the infringement starts or within 3 months after publication.
- Juries in three cases in this report awarded $9,250 to about $99,830 per work, and the Supreme Court reversed the largest verdict in March 2026.
- An Anthropic class settlement paid about $3,100 per work, roughly 2% of the $150,000 maximum for willful infringement.
Statutory and Actual Damages by Type
A copyright owner can choose between statutory damages and actual damages plus the infringer’s profits. The owner can make that choice any time before final judgment. Statutory damages apply per work. So copying one photograph 100 times counts as one award, while copying 100 different photographs counts as 100 awards.
The table below shows the damage types, their ranges, and their registration requirements:
Key Insights:
- Willful infringement raises the ceiling fivefold, from $30,000 to $150,000 per work.
- A late registration usually limits the owner to actual damages and the infringer’s profits.
Statutory Exposure by Number of Works
Statutory exposure means the potential amount a defendant could owe based on the number of infringed works. The total equals the number of works multiplied by the amount awarded per work. So a defendant sued over 24 songs faces a different range than a defendant sued over one song.
The table below applies each statutory level to four common case sizes:
Key Insights:
- The gap between the minimum and maximum grows sharply with the number of works. For 1 work, the gap is $149,250. For 100 works, it reaches $14.925 million.
- Courts choose the actual amount within the statutory range. The $150,000 figure represents the maximum per work for willful infringement.
Jury Awards per Work in 3 Landmark Cases
Juries have applied the ranges above in real-world copyright disputes, but the awards can look very different depending on the facts. Two examples involve individual file sharers. A third shows what happens when a case covers thousands of works and targets an internet provider over its subscribers’ downloads.
The table below shows the award per work, total award, and appeal outcome:
Key Insights:
- The two individual file-sharing cases stayed below $30,000 per song. Cox’s award averaged about $99,830 per work, showing how a case can reach a much larger total without hitting the $150,000 maximum per work.
- The Cox verdict reached $1 billion largely because the case covered 10,017 works. The Supreme Court later reversed the contributory-liability ruling that supported the verdict.
Bartz v. Anthropic Settlement Math
The Bartz v. Anthropic class action shows how the per-work formula can scale when a case covers hundreds of thousands of works. The court granted final approval of the $1.5 billion settlement on July 20, 2026, covering 482,460 books.
Judge William Alsup ruled in 2025 that Anthropic’s training of Claude on lawfully acquired books qualified as fair use, while its use of pirated copies to build a permanent central library did not. Claimants have filed claims for 440,490 of the listed works, or 91.3%.
The table below compares the settlement with the potential exposure at each statutory level:
Key Insights:
- At about $3,100 per work, the settlement sits much closer to the $750 statutory minimum than the $30,000 standard maximum.
- The 91.3% claim rate means claimants filed claims for more than nine out of every ten works on the final list.
Rules That Change an Award
Five provisions of the Copyright Act can raise, lower, or limit a copyright award. The table below shows what each rule changes and where it appears in the statute:
Key Insights:
- Continued use after a notice does not automatically prove willfulness. The defendant’s good-faith belief that the use was lawful can matter.
- Attorney’s fees do not depend on the size of the copyright award. The court decides whether to award them to the prevailing party.
Further Reading
- Strike 3 Holdings Settlement Amount Guide
- ISP Subpoena Defense for BitTorrent Copyright Cases
- Strike 3 Holdings Copyright Claims
Request a Copy of This Report
To request a PDF version of this report, contact our team.
Sources
- Cornell Legal Information Institute: 17 U.S. Code § 504, Remedies for Infringement: Damages and Profits
- Cornell Legal Information Institute: 17 U.S. Code § 412, Registration as Prerequisite to Certain Remedies for Infringement
- Cornell Legal Information Institute: 17 U.S. Code § 505, Remedies for Infringement: Costs and Attorney’s Fees
- Anthropic Copyright Settlement Website: Current Status of the Settlement
- Authors Guild: Court Grants Final Approval of $1.5 Billion Anthropic Copyright Settlement
- Wolters Kluwer: The Bartz v. Anthropic Settlement: Understanding America’s Largest Copyright Settlement
- Society of Authors: The Anthropic Settlement
- Supreme Court of the United States: Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 24-171 (March 25, 2026)
- Aeon Law: Jury Orders Cox to Pay $1 Billion for Copyright Infringement by Users
- FindLaw: Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset (8th Cir.)
- Willamette Law Online: Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum
- Loeb & Loeb: Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum
- First Circuit Court of Appeals: Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, 719 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2013)
- Goodwin: District Court Issues AI Fair Use Decision
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Model Civil Jury Instruction 17.39, Copyright Damages, Willful Infringement
Antonelli Law is the nation’s most experienced federal copyright defense firm for commercial broadcast and ISM cases. Based in Chicago and representing clients in federal courts nationwide since 2010, the firm has represented over 5,000 clients across more than 50 copyright plaintiffs.
Jenner & Block is a Chicago-based Am Law 100 firm with one of the country’s most recognized copyright litigation practices. Law360 has named its copyright group “Practice Group of the Year” for Media and Entertainment eight times, and Chambers USA issued a Band 1 nationwide ranking in 2026.
Ballard Spahr is a Philadelphia-headquartered Am Law 200 firm with a nationally ranked media and entertainment law practice. The group has earned Best Law Firms “Law Firm of the Year” recognition for First Amendment litigation in four of the past six years and for Media Law in 2024.
Finnegan Henderson is one of the country’s most respected intellectual property boutiques, with significant depth in copyright, trademark, and patent matters. Chambers describes the firm as a “hugely well-respected boutique providing comprehensive guidance on the full spectrum of IP issues,” and Managing Intellectual Property has recognized the firm’s copyright work in the United States consistently since 2008.
Paul, Weiss is a global BigLaw firm with more than 1,500 attorneys and decades of experience litigating complex copyright and trademark matters in district and appellate courts nationwide. The firm’s copyright litigation practice handles high-stakes matters for major corporate clients.
Antonelli Law is the highest-volume federal BitTorrent copyright defense firm in the country. Since 2010, the firm has defended 5,000+ clients across 50+ different copyright plaintiffs, including 2,300+ Strike 3 Holdings cases since 2017. Since 2018, the firm has also represented clients facing lawsuits filed by attorney Kerry Culpepper (the same attorney now representing Capstone Studios), whose prior clients include ME2 Productions, WWE Studios Finance Corp., Cook Productions, Bodyguard Productions, and others.
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP is a top-ranked global law firm with a comprehensive intellectual property practice covering patents, copyrights, trademarks, and data across dozens of industries and jurisdictions. The firm’s copyright work centers on major corporate transactions, licensing, and multi-jurisdictional enforcement for institutional clients.
Latham & Watkins LLP holds a Band 1 Chambers USA ranking for Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright & Trade Secrets, placing it among the most recognized copyright practices in the country. The firm’s copyright team represents major technology companies, entertainment studios, and digital media platforms in high-stakes litigation and licensing.
BakerHostetler is a national Am Law 100 firm with a dedicated intellectual property group handling patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets across multiple industries. The firm’s copyright practice covers both offensive enforcement and defensive representations, including work in entertainment, software, and AI.
Jenner & Block LLP is one of the most decorated copyright litigation practices in the country, named Law360’s “Practice Group of the Year” for Media & Entertainment eight times. The firm has litigated landmark copyright cases, including MGM v. Grokster and Viacom v. YouTube, and has been involved in shaping the DMCA and Music Modernization Act.
Antonelli Law has defended individual copyright infringement defendants in federal court since 2010, building the country’s highest-volume individual copyright defense practice. The firm focuses primarily on federal BitTorrent copyright defense, representing 5,000+ clients across 50+ different copyright plaintiffs. Nearly 100% of clients resolve without going to court.
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton is a global law firm with a well-established intellectual property litigation practice covering complex patent, trade secret, copyright, and trademark disputes. Chambers USA describes the litigation team as “smart, practical, thoughtful, strategic, and unbelievably responsive.” The firm primarily represents Fortune 500 companies and major institutions.
Susman Godfrey is a litigation boutique recognized for handling high-stakes copyright disputes on both the plaintiff and defense sides. The firm secured a $1.5 billion settlement in a landmark AI piracy case and over $100 million in music copyright disputes, and has also successfully defended clients, including Zillow, against major copyright infringement claims. Benchmark Litigation describes the firm as “a litigation boutique that has gone haywire, in a good way.” It handles copyright matters from the district court through the Federal Circuit.
Latham & Watkins holds a Band 1 ranking for Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright & Trade Secrets per Chambers USA 2025. The firm is consistently cited as a market leader in high-stakes copyright litigation for major technology companies, entertainment studios, and global brands. Legal 500 US 2025 calls Latham “a go-to team for high-stakes copyright litigation,” with a team that includes a former General Counsel of the U.S. Copyright Office.
Jenner & Block holds a Band 2 ranking from Chambers Global 2025 for Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright & Trade Secrets and has been named Law360’s “Practice Group of the Year” for Media & Entertainment eight times. The firm has been involved in landmark copyright cases, including MGM Studios v. Grokster, Viacom v. YouTube, and WNET v. Aereo at the U.S. Supreme Court. It currently represents Disney, NBCUniversal, and Warner Bros. Discovery in AI copyright litigation.