The recent decision by a district court to grant an interlocutory appeal in the ongoing Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence case marks a significant moment in shaping the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright law. At the heart of this case is the contentious issue of whether Ross Intelligence’s use of copyrighted Westlaw headnotes constitutes fair use, a question that could profoundly influence both the technology and legal industries.
Ross Intelligence’s motion for certification was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which allows a district court to authorize an interlocutory appeal if the case involves a controlling question of law with substantial grounds for differing opinions, and if an immediate appeal could expedite the resolution of the litigation. In this case, the court found that the originality of the Westlaw headnotes and the potential fair use by Ross Intelligence represent key legal issues open to significant debate. These questions will now move to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration.
From a legal perspective, this appeal brings into focus critical provisions of the Copyright Act, particularly the requirement for originality under 17 U.S.C. § 102. Ross argues that the Westlaw headnotes fail this originality requirement because they lack the necessary “creative spark,” citing the headnotes as factual, functional summaries rather than genuinely creative works. Additionally, Ross asserts that its use of a small fraction—just .076%—of these headnotes to train an AI search tool qualifies as “transformative,” a critical element in determining whether a use is considered fair under the four-factor test set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 107. This test balances factors such as the purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect on the market value of the original work. By raising these issues, the Third Circuit’s rulings could provide much-needed clarity on how existing copyright laws apply to modern technologies like AI.
Ethically, the case embodies a broader tension between fostering technological innovation and respecting intellectual property. Critics of the district court’s prior rulings, including Ross Intelligence, warn that overly rigid interpretations of copyright law could stifle AI advancements. For instance, denying fair use claims for training AI models might hinder startups from training algorithms on existing datasets, creating barriers to market entry and innovation. On the other hand, overbroad allowances for AI-related fair use might undermine traditional avenues for monetizing intellectual property, incentivizing creators to withhold resources rather than share them.
For the AI and legal tech industries, the implications are far-reaching. Should the Third Circuit lean toward favoring strict copyright protections, firms reliant on large datasets, such as those in natural language processing or legal research AI, might face higher compliance costs or diminished access to critical data. A decision leaning toward fair use, however, might catalyze innovation by enabling broader utilization of existing intellectual property in training AI. Companies like OpenAI, Google, and other players in generative AI will watch these developments closely, as the court’s rulings may affect their own training datasets and business operations. A clear example of such implications was seen in a 2023 case involving generative art models, where fair use argued under similar principles drastically shaped creators’ rights.
This appeal not only tests the boundaries of copyright but also highlights the pressing necessity for regulatory frameworks that can accommodate evolving technologies. As the legal battle proceeds, the industry, policymakers, and other stakeholders will undoubtedly draw lessons with lasting repercussions far beyond this single case.