Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart
Mini Article – Volume 25, Issue 5
Share on Social
AI Pushes Copyright Limits—Court Pushes Back
By Kristyn Webb
Artificial Intelligence lawsuits have been grabbing headlines for a few years now. One of the most common legal challenges is whether AI should be free to train on data that is protected by copyright and owned by third parties without first obtaining permission. Is this fair use?
Briefly, in US Copyright Law, fair use is a legal doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Luckily, we now have an answer from the U.S. District Court in Delaware: using copyrighted works to train AI models without permission is not fair use.
Thomson Reuters owns the legal research database Westlaw, which includes headnotes (editorial summaries written by legal experts). These headnotes help attorneys and judges quickly understand case rulings. ROSS Intelligence, an AI-driven legal research startup, aimed to create a competitor to Westlaw.
In 2020, Thomson Reuters sued ROSS, alleging that ROSS used headnotes without permission to train its AI. ROSS initially tried to license Westlaw’s data but was denied. Instead, it used “Bulk Memos”—documents prepared by a third party that were derived from Westlaw’s headnotes. ROSS’s product, when prompted with a legal question, would produce a judicial opinion—but not a Westlaw headnote. ROSS was using the headnotes to train the AI model but was not reproducing the headnotes to the end user. ROSS argued this was fair use, but Thomson Reuters disagreed, leading to a legal battle.
In 2023, the court had initially determined that fair use was a matter for the jury to determine and denied early dismissal of the case before trial. Then, after further arguments and briefing, and after personally reviewing thousands of headnotes, the judge reversed this portion of the earlier ruling and instead held that this was decidedly not a case of fair use. The judge reasoned that because the headnotes were being used to train AI and create a tool to compete directly with Thomson Reuters there was no innovative or transformative use of the copyrighted headnotes. Moreover, Thompson Reuters may have been able to license its headnotes to other companies looking to train AI models or even use the headnotes to develop its own AI tools. Thus, no fair use.
The judge further noted that ROSS’s product was not a generative-AI model, meaning that the ROSS product was not creating new content, but outputting existing judicial opinions. However, this case will likely prove to be a bellwether for other cases involving generative AI.
The line between fair use and infringement will likely be tested further as AI evolves and these lawsuits make their way through the court system. For now, this case is a warning to AI developers: borrowing without a license can be costly.
Kristyn Webb is an attorney with Fishman Stewart’s Copyright Practice Group, and holds a master’s degree in copyright law from King’s College London.
Related Content from Fishman Stewart
One second became a surprisingly complicated piece of technology, intellectual property and sports governance in the 2026 collegiate season opening game.
With the end of Hot Dog Season quickly approaching, now is a good time to reflect on the innovative new growth that made this season what it is today.
The Ninth Circuit just reversed course on Jack Daniel's dilution claim against the 'Bad Spaniels' dog toy, vacating the injunction and ruling that parody humor alone doesn't prove reputational harm. Here's what the decision means for brand owners pursuing tarnishment claims.
The trading card industry is booming again - and what makes this moment different is not who holds the cards, literally and figuratively, but how the trading card space is rapidly evolving.
Imagine paying millions of dollars for the naming rights to a stadium—only to have your brand hidden behind a giant white tarp. That’s exactly what happened to Levi Strauss during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
As we celebrate our nation’s birthday on July 4th, many communities are replacing or supplementing traditional fireworks with drone-based light shows - which prompts the question of intellectual property protection.
The fun internet trend of promoting "dupes" has officially crossed the trademark line and everyday content creators are finding themselves in the crosshairs of multimillion-dollar corporate lawsuits.
The FIFA World Cup is global football (or soccer) at its highest level. It is, however, also one of the most carefully crafted displays of intellectual property (IP) in the world.
Trademark owners are often cast as villains when they send cease-and-desist letters. But in trademark law, failing to enforce rights can sometimes create bigger problems than enforcing them.
Women’s sports are having a moment, and not a small one. And right alongside that rise: the business of women’s sports is heating up, including some surprisingly dramatic trademark battles.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
