Thomson Reuters is near won The first major AI copyright case in the United States.
In 2020, media and technology group filed an unprecedented AI copyright suit Legal AI Startup against Ross Intelligence. In the complaint, Thomson Reuters claimed that the AI firm re -introduced the material from its legal research firm Westlav. Today, a judge ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters, finding that the company's copyright was actually violating the functions of Ross intelligence.
“None of the possible rescue of Ross keeps water. I reject them all, ”in a summary decision, the District Court of Delaware Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote.
Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence did not immediately respond to the remarks requests.
Generic AI Boom has spited an additional Legal fights How AI companies can use copyright content, as many major AI equipment were developed by training on copyright works including books, movies, visual artwork and websites. Right now, there are currently several dozen cases through the American court system, as well as international challenges in China, Canada, UK and other countries.
In particular, Judge Bibas ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters on the question of proper use. Proper use principle One is Main component How AI companies are demanding to defend themselves against claims that they illegally use copyright content. The idea of underlining fair use is that sometimes it is allowed to use copyright functions without legally permission -for example, to create parody works, or in non -commercial research or news production . While determining whether proper use is applied, courts use a four-work test, due to the work, the nature of the work (whether it is poetry, non-literature, private letters, et cetera), copyright Given the amount of work done, and more used. How the use affects the market value of origin. Thomson Reuters reinforced two of the four factors, but Bibas described the fourth as the most important, and decided that Ross means “a market option had to be competed with Westlavas by developing a market option.”
Even before this decision, Ross Intelligence had already felt the impact of the court fight: Startup shut down In 2021, citing the cost of litigation. In contrast, many of the AI companies are still excluding it in court, such as Openai and Google, financially equipped with long -term legal quarrels.
Nevertheless, this decision is a setback for AI companies, according to the Professor of Digital and Internet Law of Cornel University, James Grimelman's Professor: “If this decision is followed, it is actually bad for generic AI companies.” Greecimelman believes that Bibas's decision shows that most of the law in the case is that the generation AI companies are citing proper use, “irrelevant”.
Chris Mamen, a partner of Vombal Bond Dicinson, who focuses on the intellectual property law, said it would complicate the arguments of fair use of AI companies, although it could vary from plaintiff to the plaintiff. He says, “It puts a finger on the scale that does not apply that fair use,” they say.