AI Copyright Ruling: Thomson Reuters Wins Against Ross Intelligence

In a significant development in the ongoing debate surrounding artificial intelligence and copyright law, a federal judge has ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters in its lawsuit against Ross Intelligence, a legal AI developer. The ruling, handed down by U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, revises his 2023 summary judgment opinion on the case.

The dispute stems from a May 2020 lawsuit in which Thomson Reuters accused Ross Intelligence of unlawfully copying content from its Westlaw platform to train its AI. The content was allegedly acquired from LegalEase Solutions, a Michigan-based research and writing service provider. The case has drawn attention to the broader issue of AI models using content from various sources to train their algorithms, a practice that has raised concerns among media outlets, artists, and authors.

Judge Bibas, in his revised opinion, acknowledged that Ross Intelligence bears the burden of proof in demonstrating fair use. He explained that after Ross was denied a license to use Westlaw content, it acquired training data from LegalEase, which provided 'Bulk Memos' or collections of legal queries and responses. Ross used these Bulk Memos to train its AI search tool, effectively building its competing product using content derived from Westlaw headnotes.

LegalEase, according to Judge Bibas, provided a guide explaining how to create the questions and answers using Westlaw headnotes, instructing users not to copy and paste the headnotes directly. However, the judge found that Ross Intelligence infringed on 2,243 headnotes, with the only remaining factual question being whether some of their copyrights had expired. He also ruled that Ross Intelligence's defenses, including innocent infringement, copyright misuse, merger, and scenes à faire, fail.

The ruling highlights the complex nature of copyright law in the age of AI, as companies and creators grapple with the implications of AI models using their content to train algorithms. As AI continues to evolve, it is likely that similar disputes will arise, further shaping the legal landscape surrounding AI and intellectual property.