In October 2025, celebrated South African author Zakes Mda became one of several authors to win compensation in a high-profile class-action lawsuit against the AI company Anthropic. This case centered on the unauthorized use of his novels to train AI models.
This victory is already seen as significant. It signals that AI systems, and those who use them, can still be held accountable under copyright law. It shows that creatives can assert their rights, even in this new landscape.
But what does this case really mean for South African creators? Below is a detailed look at the legal principles, the limits of Mda’s win, and what local creatives should do moving forward.
The Facts: What We Know About the Mda / Anthropic Settlement
The lawsuit, known as Bartz v. Anthropic, is a class action filed in the U.S. Various authors claimed that their works were used without permission to train a large language model (LLM) called “Claude.”
Zakes Mda confirmed that several of his novels were among those used: The Heart of Redness, The Madonna of Excelsior, The Whale Caller, She Plays with the Darkness, and Sometimes There Is a Void.
In September 2025, the courts preliminarily approved a settlement of US $1.5 billion. Mda has publicly questioned whether South African authors—whose works may have been used in the same way—can seek recourse under local law. Our Copyright Act and the regulations on AI are outdated. This settlement is U.S.-based, and the rights involved reference U.S. copyright laws, not South African laws. It applies to authors whose works were used in contexts that fall under U.S. jurisdiction.
In short, the Mda win is not a legal precedent in South Africa, but it holds symbolic and practical importance for how we think about AI, authorship, and enforcement in the future. It also raises questions about how our laws will adapt.
The Legal Landscape in South Africa: Where Things Stand
To understand how this victory may impact South African creatives, it’s important to know the current state of AI, copyright, and authorship under our local law.
Under the Copyright Act 98 of 1978, and the proposed amended Bill currently moving through parliament, copyright protection automatically applies to original literary, musical, artistic, cinematographic, and other works. A work must be original, fixed in a tangible form, and created by a natural person. The Act also covers computer-generated works, where the “author” is considered to be the person who arranged for its creation.
South African courts and most commentators distinguish between computer-assisted works, where a human plays a creative role and uses computer tools (meaning the human remains the author), and computer-generated works, where computers create the work with minimal human input.
Regardless of where the line is drawn, the question of whether the user, developer, or “arranger” is the “author” can be controversial.
In places like the U.S., “fair use” doctrines can sometimes provide a defense. However, South Africa currently relies on a more limited fair dealing doctrine. This doctrine includes narrowly defined permitted uses like research, private use, criticism, and review. Many AI applications, especially for commercial models, are unlikely to meet the criteria for fair dealing under current South African law. Local AI developers or foreign AI products used in South Africa might face increased liability if they rely on large datasets of protected works without permission.
South Africa does not yet have a dedicated AI law, but the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies has issued a draft AI policy framework (the National AI Plan) as a basis for future regulation. Until specific AI laws take effect, creators, users, and developers must rely on existing laws—copyright, contract, data protection, and competition—to challenge or regulate AI practices.
While not binding in South Africa, Mda’s win carries important messages:
- It shows that authors can assert their rights in appropriate jurisdictions, even against powerful AI companies.
- It increases global pressure on AI developers to secure licenses or rights for training data.
- It may influence South African courts and lawmakers in how they interpret or reform copyright law to better protect creatives in the AI era.
- It emphasizes that “AI is not above the law” and that machines and algorithms do not eliminate copyright responsibility.
For South African creators, this win acts as both a morale boost and a warning: you need to assert your rights actively, as legal tools may still be slower to catch up with technology.
The Zakes Mda victory is more than just a headline or celebrity moment; it marks a pivotal point in the ongoing legal battle over AI, authorship, and fairness. For South African creatives, it is a call to action: AI does not operate above the law—yet.
However, to truly benefit, you must be proactive, informed, and strategic.