A significant legal decision has emerged from the U.S. judicial system, marking a pivotal moment for artificial intelligence and intellectual property law. A federal judge, Stephanos Bibas, delivered a summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters in its lawsuit against legal tech firm Ross Intelligence. The case revolved around Ross' use of headnotes from Westlaw, Thomson Reuters' legal research service, to train its AI platform. Judge Bibas ruled that Ross' actions constituted an infringement on Reuters' intellectual property rights, challenging the boundaries of fair use in the context of AI.
Ross Intelligence had argued that its use of the copyrighted headnotes was legally defensible under the doctrine of transformative use. They claimed that their AI platform repurposed the headnotes to serve a different function or market. However, Judge Bibas found that Ross' platform failed to add new meaning, purpose, or commentary to the original content, thus undermining their claim. He also highlighted Ross' commercial motivations, noting that the startup aimed to profit from a product directly competing with Westlaw without significant recontextualization of the copyrighted material.
The judgment is a strong victory for Thomson Reuters and signals broader implications for similar cases pending across U.S. courts. The decision could influence the outcomes of more than 39 copyright-related AI lawsuits currently in progress. Legal experts, like U.S. patent attorney Randy McCarthy, believe that Judge Bibas' focus on the market impacts of the original work could be crucial for rights holders in cases against generative AI developers.
"One thing is clear, at least in this case: merely using copyrighted material as training data [for] an AI cannot be said to be fair use per se," – Randy McCarthy
The judgment also underscores the complexities and challenges of applying traditional copyright law to AI-generated content. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integral to various industries, courts face the difficult task of balancing technological innovation with the protection of intellectual property rights.
Shubha Ghosh, a Syracuse University professor specializing in IP law, described the outcome as a "strong victory" for Thomson Reuters. He emphasized that the court's rejection of Ross' fair-use defense was partly due to the direct competition created by Ross' legal research system.
"The court rejected a fair-use defense as a matter of law in part because Ross used [Thomson Reuters] headnotes to develop a competing legal research system," – Shubha Ghosh
The case now proceeds to trial, albeit with Thomson Reuters having secured a favorable summary judgment at this litigation stage. The ruling could set a precedent for how courts handle similar disputes involving AI and copyrighted material.
"The trial will proceed, [but] Thomson Reuters was awarded a summary judgment, a victory at this stage of the litigation," – Shubha Ghosh
In addition to its immediate effects, Judge Bibas' decision has already had an impact on other ongoing lawsuits. At least one set of plaintiffs in another AI copyright case has requested that a court consider this ruling's implications.
Despite the judgment's significance, McCarthy noted that Judge Bibas' opinion is relatively narrow and might be subject to appeal. This possibility suggests that while the decision is influential, it may not be the final word on AI and copyright law.
Leave a Reply