Thomson Reuters Secures Landmark Victory in US AI Copyright Lawsuit
Thomson Reuters Wins First Major AI Copyright Case in the US
The decision has significant implications for the battle between generative AI companies and rights holders.
Thomson Reuters’ offices in Times Square, New York City.
Photograph: Eduardo MunozAlvarez/Getty Images
Thomson Reuters is a Canadian multinational media conglomerate that provides news, media monitoring, and business intelligence services.
Founded in 1851, the company has grown to become one of the world's largest providers of news and information.
With over 25,000 journalists and 300 locations worldwide, Thomson Reuters offers a vast range of products and services, including The Financial Times, Reuters News Agency, and Thomson Reuters Westlaw.
The company is known for its high-quality news content, innovative technology, and commitment to journalistic excellence.
AI Companies Face Uncertainty in Copyright Laws
In a landmark ruling, Thomson Reuters has won the first major AI copyright case in the United States. The media and technology conglomerate filed an unprecedented lawsuit against Ross Intelligence, a legal AI startup, in 2020. The complaint alleged that the AI firm reproduced materials from Westlaw, Thomson Reuters’ legal research firm.
Judge Stephanos Bibas of the US District Court of Delaware ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters, finding that the company’s copyright was indeed infringed by Ross Intelligence’s actions. ‘None of Ross’s possible defenses holds water,‘ wrote Judge Bibas in a summary judgment. ‘I reject them all.’
Stephanos Bibas is a Greek-American jurist and legal scholar.
He serves as the Class of 1941 Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.
Bibas has written extensively on topics such as evidence law, sentencing policy, and international justice.
His work focuses on the intersection of law and social science, with an emphasis on empirical research and data-driven analysis.
The generative AI boom has led to a surge in lawsuits regarding how AI companies can use copyrighted material. Many major AI tools were developed by training on copyrighted works, including books, films, visual artwork, and websites. Currently, there are several dozen lawsuits winding through the US court system, as well as international challenges in China, Canada, the UK, and other countries.
Fair Use Doctrine Under Scrutiny
Judge Bibas’ ruling also addressed the question of fair use. The fair use doctrine is a key component of how AI companies defend themselves against claims that they used copyrighted materials illegally. However, Thomson Reuters prevailed on only two of the four factors used to determine fair use.
The fair use doctrine is a provision in US copyright law (17 USC § 107) that permits limited use of copyrighted material without obtaining permission from the copyright holder.
This exemption applies to purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
To qualify for fair use, four factors must be considered: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect on the market value of the original work.
According to Judge Bibas, the most important factor was whether the use impacted the market value of the original work. He ruled that Ross ‘meant to compete with Westlaw by developing a market substitute.’ This decision suggests that much of the case law cited by generative AI companies to argue fair use may be irrelevant.
Implications for Generative AI Companies
The ruling is seen as a blow to AI companies, according to Cornell University professor James Grimmelmann. ‘If this decision is followed elsewhere, it’s really bad for the generative AI companies,’ he said. Chris Mammen, a partner at Womble Bond Dickinson who focuses on intellectual property law, concurs that this will complicate AI companies’ fair use arguments.
However, the impact of the ruling may vary from plaintiff to plaintiff. ‘It puts a finger on the scale towards holding that fair use doesn’t apply,’ said Mammen.
