explain how Claude Anthropic violates copyright infringement using this "In order to establish how substantial taking is to be determined has been looked at in case law, Baigent & Lee v Random House Group Ltd^[1] where Mummery LJ stated that "first, there should be an analysis of the similarities between the alleged infringement and the original copyright work, because unless similarities exist, there is no arguable case of copying" In the case of Claude, it is clear that the software creates a similar output, this is suggested by the statement, "when asked to reproduce the lyrics to specific songs, like Katy Perry's "Roar", Claude will give users nearly identical lyrics."^[2] Mummery LJ goes on to explain "second, it should be asked what access, direct or indirect, did the author of the alleged infringing work have to the source work" in this case, Claude stated that, they said Claude "is trained using data from publicly available information on the Internet as ofDecember 2022."^[3] and "thirdly, did the author of the alleged infringement make some use of material derived by him, directly or indirectly, from the original work" and "Fourth, if the defendant contends that no such use is made, what is his explanation for the existence of similarities between the two works? Fifth, if use was made of the source work, did this amount to a 'substantial part' of it? Finally, what factors support the conclusion that what has been taken is a 'substantial part' of the original?" explaining how each step of Mummery LJ has been fulfilled by Claude, giving examples and quotations as well as referencing