The recent order granting interlocutory appeal in the Thompson Reuters vs. ROSS Intelligence case represents a critical juncture in defining the boundaries of copyright law as it pertains to artificial intelligence (AI). The case revolves around the use of copyrighted elements from Thomson Reuters’ legal databases in ROSS Intelligence’s AI-powered legal research tool. Central to the dispute is whether ROSS’s use of a fraction of Westlaw’s headnotes—0.076%—qualifies as fair use and whether those headnotes meet the Copyright Act’s originality standards.
Legal experts are closely watching the case as it highlights ambiguities under existing law. U.S. copyright law, specifically under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), provides protection for “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” For a work to qualify as original, the work must reflect a minimal degree of creativity. In its motion, ROSS argued that the Westlaw headnotes lack the “creative spark” required for copyright protection. This idea mirrors the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., where the Court concluded that merely compiling factual information is not sufficiently creative to warrant copyright protection.
Regarding fair use, established under 17 U.S.C. § 107, courts employ a four-factor test, considering aspects such as purpose, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the portion used, and the effect on the market for the original work. ROSS contends that using less than 1% of the headnotes in a manner transformative to train AI models falls under fair use. However, the court’s earlier summary judgment ruling sided with Thomson Reuters, finding the use neither sufficiently transformative nor falling within the boundaries of fair use. The pending interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) will allow the Third Circuit to weigh in on these pivotal issues before the case proceeds to trial.
Ethically, this legal tension highlights divergent concerns—balancing copyright holders’ rights versus fostering innovation. If courts continue to narrow fair use exceptions regarding transformative AI uses, technology companies may face unprecedented hurdles in developing AI systems trained on existing protected works. Critics argue that this sets dangerous precedents that stifle innovation while using copyright law to entrench market power. On the other hand, proponents of stricter copyright enforcement emphasize protecting the labor and investment involved in creating these resources, warning that lenient standards could result in widespread unlicensed usage.
The potential implications of the Third Circuit’s decision extend far beyond legal research. Industries such as journalism, education, healthcare, and entertainment rely heavily on AI systems that learn from copyrighted materials. For instance, an AI model trained on medical data to identify patterns for disease diagnosis could face liability challenges if parts of its training data are protected by copyright. By clarifying the scope of fair use and originality, the case could reshape the regulatory framework for AI technologies and determine how companies innovate responsibly within these bounds.
For now, the case remains a bellwether for future AI-related copyright litigation. Legal professionals, developers, and policymakers alike will be closely examining its progress to gauge its influence on the rapidly evolving tech landscape.