Court sides with Thomson Reuters in copyright case against AI company

A U.S. court has given a decision in favor of Thomson Reuters in a case about copyright against Ross Intelligence, a company that made a legal research tool using AI. The judge, Stephanos Bibas, gave the decision in Delaware District Court. This case is important because it discusses if AI companies can use other people's work without asking for permission under the rule of "fair use." The case was filed in 2020 and is one of the first to talk about this matter. It may affect how other cases about AI and copyright will be decided in the future.

Stay informed with the latest news. Follow DXB News Network on WhatsApp Channel  

Ross Intelligence had created a tool to help people do legal research, similar to Westlaw, which is a well-known legal database owned by Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters said that Ross used their special legal summaries, called headnotes, without asking. These headnotes are short descriptions of legal cases, written by human experts, and they are protected by copyright. The legal cases themselves are public information, but the summaries are not.

Thomson Reuters said that Ross took these headnotes to teach its AI system and build its research tool. Ross, however, said that they only turned the summaries into numbers and that their use should be allowed under "fair use." The judge disagreed, saying that Ross copied important parts of Thomson Reuters' work to make a similar product. This, the judge said, was copyright violation.

The court also said that just because Ross changed the words into numbers, it did not mean the content was no longer protected by copyright. The judge explained that Ross had taken someone else's work and used it in a way that could hurt Thomson Reuters’ business.

Ross Intelligence had already closed in 2021 because it had money problems and was also facing legal trouble. But this court decision may still have a big effect on how AI companies use information that belongs to others. Many AI systems learn by using large amounts of data, and some of this data might be protected by copyright. This ruling suggests that AI companies may need to ask for permission before using such data.

Legal experts are watching this case closely, as other similar cases are already in court. This decision may serve as an example for future cases about AI and copyright. As AI continues to grow, companies using protected data might face more legal problems, and this case could be used to guide future decisions.