Thomson Reuters has secured a significant victory in a copyright infringement case involving AI and fair use. The ruling came through a summary judgment from Judge Stephanos Bibas in a five-year-old case concerning Thomson Reuters' Westlaw legal database.

The case revolves around Ross Intelligence allegedly using protected materials from Westlaw's database without permission to create an AI-powered legal search engine. The materials were reportedly obtained through a third-party legal-services provider after Thomson Reuters declined a direct licensing proposal.

Key Points of the Ruling:

• Judge Bibas found Thomson Reuters' headnotes to have original, copyrightable value
• The court ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters on fair use, describing Ross' use as non-transformative
• The judge determined Ross aimed to create a market substitute to compete with Westlaw
• Out of 2,830 headnotes examined, 2,243 showed "actual copying"

Important Distinctions:

• The ruling specifically addresses non-generative AI
• The case doesn't directly apply to generative AI applications
• The decision could influence future music industry copyright cases against AI developers

The judge notably compared legal headnotes to sculpture, stating that while raw judicial opinions (like marble) aren't copyrightable, the editorial judgment in creating headnotes (like sculpting) produces copyrightable work.

While this victory strengthens copyright holders' positions, its impact on generative AI cases may be limited. The court explicitly noted that "only non-generative AI is before me today," distinguishing this case from ongoing disputes involving generative AI models in music and other creative fields.

This ruling represents a significant precedent for traditional copyright protection while leaving open questions about the broader implications for generative AI technologies.

Related Articles

Previous Articles