The media and technology company sued Ross Intelligence, a lawful AI startup, for extraordinary copyright rights in 2020. Thomson Reuters claimed in the issue that it copied materials from Westlaw, a constitutional research company. Now, a judge ruled in Thomson Reuters ‘ pursuit, finding that the agency’s copyright was really infringed by Ross Intelligence’s activities.
” None of Ross’s possible defenses holds water. I reject them all”, wrote US District Court of Delaware determine Stephanos Bibas, in a conclusion decision.
Ross Intelligence and Thomson Reuters did not respond to requests for post right away.
As some big AI tools were developed by teaching on copyrighted works like books, movies, physical drawings, and websites, the conceptual AI boom has resulted in a number of further constitutional fights about how AI companies you use copyrighted material. Right now, there are several hundred complaints now winding through the US jury system, as well as international problems in China, Canada, the UK, and other places.
Notably, Judge Bibas decided in Thomson Reuters ‘ favor on the issue of fair use. The fair use principle is a crucial component of how AI companies are trying to defend themselves from accusations that they unlawfully used copyrighted materials. The idea underpinning fair use is that sometimes it’s legally permissible to use copyrighted works without permission—for example, to create parody works, or in noncommercial research or news production. When determining whether fair use applies, courts use a four-factor test, looking at the reason behind the work, the nature of the work ( whether it’s poetry, nonfiction, private letters, et cetera ), the amount of copyrighted work used, and how the use impacts the market value of the original. On two of the four factors, Thomson Reuters prevailed, but Bibas deemed the fourth to be the most crucial, and said Ross “meant to compete with Westlaw by developing a market substitute.”
Even before this ruling, Ross Intelligence had already felt the impact of the court battle: The startup shut down in 2021, citing the cost of litigation. In contrast, many of the AI companies still duking it out in court, like OpenAI and Google, are financially equipped to weather prolonged legal fights.
Still, this ruling is a blow to AI companies, according to Cornell University professor of digital and internet law James Grimmelmann:” If this decision is followed elsewhere, it’s really bad for the generative AI companies”. According to Grimmelmann, Bibas ‘ decision suggests that a significant portion of the case law supporting fair use is “irrelevant” by generative AI companies.
This may complicate AI companies ‘ fair use arguments, according to Chris Mammen, a partner at Womble Bond Dickinson who specializes in intellectual property law. ” It puts a finger on the scale towards holding that fair use doesn’t apply”, he says.
