
If you’ve been following court cases that relate to artificial intelligence, you probably saw some headlines about a recent federal court decision in the US District Court for Delaware, in a copyright-infringement case filed by Thomson Reuters against a company called Ross Intelligence. I saw headlines that claimed this was a “landmark ruling” and a “major win” for content creators, that the AI industry was on the ropes, that this decision marked a turning point in the debate over copyright and artificial intelligence, that fair use is over as a defense for AI training, etc. etc. Is this accurate? Not really. It is definitely true that the court’s ruling is the first significant federal decision related to AI and copyright. But there are a number of reasons why this case doesn’t have as much impact on AI and copyright as the headlines might lead you to believe.
Before I continue, I should note my bias on the question of AI and copyright: Faithful readers of Torment Nexus will recall that in a previous post, I discussed the issue of whether the indexing of content by AI engines should be considered fair use. As I tried to argue in that post, it’s my view that it should. Do LLMs scrape and ingest copyrighted content in large quantities, in most cases without permission? Yes. Do they use this content to generate responses to questions or prompts that relate to the topics discussed in the original versions of that content? Yes. Nevertheless, I believe — as a number of copyright and intellectual property experts do — that this activity should fall under the fair-use exception in US copyright law, for a number of reasons outlined in that post. I’ll get to some of that later, I just wanted to get my bias up front before I continue.
First, some of the facts related to this particular case: Thomson Reuters, which operates the Reuters news-wire service, also owns a number of professional databases that make up the majority of its business. One of those is called Westlaw, and it’s fascinating to me that for years the company had what amounted to a monopoly on the method of citing legal cases in US courts. It seems bizarre now, but Westlaw owned a copyright that covered the system of page-numbering used in US courts, so you literally couldn’t even refer to a previous case for precedent without infringing on Westlaw’s copyright, and the company spent years suing everyone who tried to use it without paying for it — like Lexis-Nexis, a competing legal database. That monopoly over page numbering was mostly dismantled in the late 1990s, but Westlaw still has a copyright on the way cases are summarized, something known as “headnotes.”
Note: This is a version of my Torment Nexus newsletter, which I send out via Ghost, the open-source publishing platform. You can see other issues and sign up here.
Continue reading “Breaking down a federal court’s ruling on AI and copyright”

























