Thomson Reuters v. Ross: The First AI Fair Use Ruling Fails to Persuade
Facts of the Case On February 11, Third Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas (sitting by designation for the U.S. District Court […]
Facts of the Case On February 11, Third Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas (sitting by designation for the U.S. District Court […]
Last month, we blogged about the key takeaways from the 2024 TDM exemptions recently put in place by the Librarian
The final outcome of the case: the plaintiff was ordered to cover $102,404 in fees and $165.72 in costs for the defendant. This should serve as a cautionary tale for would-be plaintiffs: copyright lawsuits, like any other type of litigation, are primarily meant to address the damages plaintiffs actually suffered, and the final settlement should make plaintiffs whole again—that is, as if no infringement has ever occurred. Copyright lawsuits (or the threat to sue) should not be undertaken as a way to create brand new income streams.
Ideas and concepts, including “derivative works,” are only important to the extent they elucidate our understanding of the world. When the use of “derivative works” leads to more confusion than clarity, we should be cautious in adopting the new meaning being superimposed on “derivative works.”
The booming AI industry has sparked heated debates over what AI developers are legally allowed to do. So far, we
This guest post was jointly authored by Mariah Johnson and Marcus Liou, student attorneys in Georgetown’s Intellectual Property and Information