Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

<p>The Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence Inc. case has had some significant movement this week - the judge granted partial summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters.  The case circles around the issue of whether it is a fair use when an artificial intelligence (AI) company uses another party's works (here, Thomson Reuters) as training data for its AI and machine learning. Notably, this case is about training AI, not generative AI, but the implications will likely be significant regardless.</p><p>Copyright fair use is analyzed using four factors in a balancing test - (1) the purpose and character of the use, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and (4) the effect on the potential market of the work.  Here, the court ruled that on the balance, these factors weighed in favor of Thomson Reuters, concluding that using another party's works as training data for AI is not a fair use.</p><p>Fair use is the key copyright doctrine at play in these AI-copyright cases. To see a federal judge in Delaware conclude that training AI on another's work is not a fair use is surely sending alarm bells off in tech companies everywhere. While this is only one judge's ruling and each AI-copyright case will have different facts that may necessitate a different outcome, this case serves as a significant data point in what will become a tapestry of court decisions. <br> </p><p> </p><input type='hidden' id='passle-remote-hosting-tracking-shortcode' value='102k06g'/><blockquote class="wp-block-quote passle-quote has-cite-link"><p>Still, this ruling is a blow to AI companies, according to Cornell University professor of digital and internet law James Grimmelmann: “If this decision is followed elsewhere, it&#039;s really bad for the generative AI companies.” Grimmelmann believes that Bibas’ judgement suggests that much of the case law that generative AI companies are citing to argue fair use is “irrelevant.”</p><cite><a href="https://www.wired.com/story/thomson-reuters-ai-copyright-lawsuit/" aria-label="www.wired.com/..." title="https://www.wired.com/story/thomson-reuters-ai-copyright-lawsuit/" target="_blank">www.wired.com/...</a></cite></blockquote><div class="passle-featured-image passle-featured-image-position-bottom"><img src="https://images.passle.net/fit-in/400x400/filters:crop(0,44,2121,1187)/Passle/5f6edd8e8cb62a0bec3e5fd2/SearchServiceImages/2025-02-15-18-23-17-923-67b0db958c41fb62e981a22b.jpg" alt="Featured Image" /></div>

Thomson Reuters Win – What does this mean for copyright & AI?

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

OSHA Site Targeting 2026: Are You a Target?

Trademark Watch Services in Practice: Turning Alerts into Informed Decisions

Legal Bites: Q4 2025 Edition