On September 25, 2023, a significant legal decision involving artificial intelligence emerged from the American judiciary. A United States Circuit Judge concluded that the issues of fair use and tortious interference raised in media conglomerate Thomson Reuters’s lawsuit against legal-research AI startup Ross Intelligence required a jury to decide. Thomson Reuters, owner of the legal research platform WestLaw, contends that Ross Intelligence infringed its copyright by unlawfully duplicating WestLaw’s short summaries of points of law appearing within judicial opinions. Although these cases often resolve via summary judgment, this instance necessitates a full trial due to the complex issues involved.
The topic of fair use is a cornerstone of copyright law, often serving as a legal defense that can exonerate accused parties if the use of the copyrighted material is deemed reasonable and not excessively exploitative. Typically, fair use considerations involve the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use on the market for the original work.
In Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, the fair use question is complicated by the role of AI. AI legal research tools, like Ross Intelligence, utilize large amounts of existing data to generate new legal insights and research. This innovative approach disrupts traditional models of legal research and raises critical questions about how copyright law should align with AI’s unique capabilities. To what extent is Ross Intelligence responsible if its AI algorithm inadvertently duplicates copyrighted summaries from WestLaw?
Moreover, the lawsuit draws attention to the issue of tortious interference, a common claim in business litigation. This claim argues that Ross Intelligence unlawfully interfered with Thomson Reuters’ advantageous business relationships or contracts.
The decision in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence could set a controversial precedent for how AI and copyright law intersect. However, the proceedings also highlight the growing need for comprehensive legal frameworks that grapple with such dynamic technologies.
For more details, catch up on the full account here.