A U.S. District Court ruled that Ross Intelligence infringed on Thomson Reuters’ copyright by using its headnotes for AI training, rejecting the company’s fair use claim. This decision set a precedent that may influence ongoing lawsuits against AI companies, emphasizing that copyrighted works cannot be used without permission, and underscoring the need for licensing agreements.
A recent court ruling has provided encouraging news for Hollywood creators pursuing legal action against artificial intelligence (AI) companies. The U.S. District Judge Stephanos Bibas determined that Ross Intelligence, a former competitor, could not invoke the “fair use” exception to copyright law in its attempt to utilize Thomson Reuters’ content for developing a legal research platform. This ruling is significant as it sets a precedent that may influence future decisions regarding the use of copyrighted materials for AI training.
The case stems from Ross Intelligence’s use of Thomson Reuters’ headnotes—summaries of legal principles—that were integral to their paid legal research services. The court found that Ross had potentially violated over 2,200 headnotes, which are individually recognized as original works under intellectual property law. Judge Bibas emphasized that the creative process involved in generating these headnotes qualifies them for copyright protection, analogous to how a sculptor transforms raw marble into a work of art.
Judge Bibas’s ruling notably declined to recognize “fair use,” which typically allows for the use of copyrighted work if it is deemed transformative. The judgment highlighted Ross’s intent to compete with Thomson Reuters through profit, which undermines the notion of fair use. The court concluded that the market impact of using Thomson Reuters’ data for AI training is significant, irrespective of whether Thomson Reuters has developed its own AI tools.
Additionally, the ruling references the Supreme Court case involving the Andy Warhol Foundation, which limited the scope of fair use by emphasizing the importance of the commercial nature of the use. This has encouraged creators to argue that AI companies should seek licenses for copyrighted materials rather than infringe upon them. Intellectual property lawyer Randy McCarthy stated that this ruling is likely to be seen as essential by artists and content creators in their litigation against generative AI technology, stressing that utilizing copyrighted materials for AI training cannot be classified as fair use by default.
The recent ruling against Ross Intelligence serves as a pivotal moment for copyright law in the context of AI training. By denying fair use defense and emphasizing the originality of works, the decision may empower content creators in Hollywood and beyond. This case will likely reverberate within ongoing legal challenges faced by multiple AI companies, establishing a clearer framework for the use of copyrighted materials in AI systems.
Original Source: www.hollywoodreporter.com
Leave a Reply