Thomson Reuters wins landmark AI copyright lawsuit

The battle over AI companies’ use of copyrighted material for training has reached a pivotal moment with the first major artificial intelligence copyright ruling in the United States. Thomson Reuters’ lawsuit against Ross Intelligence, filed in 2020, centered on the startup’s alleged reproduction of materials from Thomson Reuters’ legal research platform Westlaw.

Key ruling details: U.S. District Court of Delaware Judge Stephanos Bibas issued a summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters, rejecting all of Ross Intelligence’s defenses.

• Judge Bibas determined that Ross Intelligence had infringed on Thomson Reuters’ copyright by using Westlaw materials
• The ruling specifically addressed the critical issue of fair use, with Thomson Reuters prevailing on two of the four factors in the fair use test
• The judge emphasized that Ross Intelligence intended to create a market substitute to compete with Westlaw, a key factor in the decision

Broader implications for AI industry: This landmark decision could significantly impact how generative AI companies approach the use of copyrighted materials in their training data.

• The ruling weakens AI companies’ reliance on fair use doctrine as a defense against copyright infringement claims
• Dozens of similar lawsuits are currently pending in the U.S. and international courts, including cases in China, Canada, and the UK
• Major tech companies like OpenAI and Google face similar legal challenges but have greater financial resources to sustain prolonged litigation

Business impact: The financial burden of legal battles has already shaped the competitive landscape in AI development.

• Ross Intelligence was forced to shut down operations in 2021 due to litigation costs
• Larger tech companies with substantial resources are better positioned to weather extended legal challenges
• The ruling may create barriers to entry for smaller AI startups seeking to compete with established players

Legal expert perspectives: Leading scholars and practitioners view this decision as a potential watershed moment for AI copyright law.

• Cornell University professor James Grimmelmann suggests the ruling could be “really bad for generative AI companies” if other courts follow this precedent
• The decision indicates that much of the case law AI companies cite to support fair use arguments may be “irrelevant”
• IP law expert Chris Mammen notes the ruling tilts the scales against fair use defenses in AI copyright cases

Future implications: This precedent-setting case could reshape the development and deployment of AI technologies across industries.

• AI companies may need to revise their approaches to training data acquisition and usage
• The ruling could accelerate the development of alternative training methods that don’t rely on copyrighted materials
• Smaller AI startups may face increased scrutiny and legal risk when developing competitive products

Reading between the lines: While this ruling represents a victory for content owners, it may ultimately lead to innovation in how AI companies approach training data and model development, potentially resulting in more sustainable and legally compliant approaches to artificial intelligence development.