Thomson Reuters wins the first major AI copyright lawsuit in the US

Thomson Reuters has it I won The first major AI copyright case in the United States.

In 2020, Media and Technology Conglomerates submitted unprecedented AI Copyright Litigation For legal AI startup loss intelligence. In the complaint, Thomson Reuters alleged that the AI ​​company recreated the material from legal research firm Westlaw. Today, the judge ruled the favor of Thomson Reuters, noting that the company’s copyright has actually been infringed by Ross Intelligence’s actions.

“None of the possible Loss defenses hold water. I reject them all,” Delaware District Court Judge Stefanos Vivas wrote in a summary judgment.

Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Genetic AI boom led to additional splates Legal fight How AI companies can use copyrighted materials, many major AI tools are developed through the training of copyrighted works such as books, films, visual artwork, websites, and more. It was done. There are dozens of litigation currently engulfed through the US court system, as well as international challenges in China, Canada, the UK and other countries.

In particular, Judge Vivas ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters on fair use issues. Doctrine of fair use It’s a Important Components How AI companies are trying to use copyrighted materials illegally from claims they have used copyrighted materials. Ideas supporting fair use may also be legally permitted to create parody work, for example, or to use copyrighted works in non-commercial research and news production. When determining whether fair use applies, the court uses four-factor tests to protect the reasons behind the work, the nature of the work (poetry, non-fiction, private letters, etc.), and the copyright used. How much work has been done and how the use affects the market value of the original. Thomson Reuters won on two of four factors, but Vivas described the fourth as the most important, saying Ross “will compete with Westrow by developing market alternatives.” I have ruled.

Even before this ruling, Loss Intelligence was already feeling the impact of the court battle: Startups shutdown In 2021, we cited the costs of the lawsuit. In contrast, many AI companies, like Openai and Google, still take it in court, but are financially equipped to weather the long-term legal battle.

Still, the ruling is a blow to AI companies, according to Cornell University professor of digital and internet law. Grimmelmann believes Vivas’s judgment suggests that many of the case laws cited as generative AI companies asserting fair use are “unrelated.”

Chris Mammen, a partner at Womble Bond Dickinson, who focuses on intellectual property law, agrees to complicate the fair use debate for AI companies, although it may differ from one plaintiff to another. “It puts fingers on scale to hold that fair use doesn’t apply,” he says.