Judge Sides With Thomson Reuters in AI Copyright Dispute – Decrypt

On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled in favor of Reuters’ parent company, Thomson Reuters, in their lawsuit against legal AI developer Ross Intelligence.

U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas said he was revising his 2023 summary judgment opinion on the case, court documents show.

The ruling stems from a May 2020 lawsuit in which Thomson Reuters accused San Franciso-based Ross Intelligence of unlawfully copying content from its Westlaw platform to train its AI using data acquired from Michigan-based LegalEase Solutions.

Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, media outlets, artists, and authors have expressed concerns that their content was being used to train AI models.

Many, including Game of Thrones creator George RR Martin, John Grisham, and Michael Connelly, have sued developers, accusing them of using their work without permission or compensation. In December 2023, the New York Times sued OpenAI, alleging its articles were used to train ChatGPT.

“In my 2023 opinion, I denied summary judgment on fair use,” Judge Bibas wrote. “But with new information and understanding, I vacate those sections of that order and its accompanying opinion addressing fair use. Fair use is an affirmative defense, so Ross bears the burden of proof.”

Judge Bibas explained that after Ross was denied a license to use Westlaw content, it acquired training data from LegalEase—a research and writing service provider that offers outsourced legal support—which provided ‘Bulk Memos’ or collections of legal queries and responses.

“LegalEase sold Ross roughly 25,000 Bulk Memos, which Ross used to train its AI search tool,” Bibas wrote. “In other words, Ross built its competing product using Bulk Memos, which in turn were built from Westlaw headnotes. When Thomson Reuters found out, it sued Ross for copyright infringement.”

LegalEase, according to Judge Bibas, provided a guide explaining how to create the questions and answers using Westlaw headnotes. The guide instructed users not to copy and paste the headnotes directly.

“The parties agree that LegalEase had access to Westlaw and used it to make the Bulk Memos,” Judge Bibas wrote. “Of course, access alone is not proof. However, when a Bulk Memo question resembles a headnote more than the original judicial opinion, it strongly suggests actual copying.”

Judge Bibas found that Ross Intelligence infringed on 2,243 headnotes, with the only remaining factual question being whether some of their copyrights had expired. He also ruled that Ross Intelligence’s defenses—including innocent infringement, copyright misuse, merger, and scenes à faire—fail.

“Smart man knows when he is right; a wise man knows when he is wrong,” Judge Bibas wrote. “Wisdom does not always find me, so I try to embrace it when it does––even if it comes late, as it did here.”

Edited by Sebastian Sinclair