Post

Obviously, it’s quite difficult to opine on an opinion that hasn’t been published. But the news today that @ROSSIntel has lost its appeal in the third circuit does leave room for a couple of general observations regardless of the details.

First, as @AdamEisgrau has articulated, there are ways for the other AI cases to distinguish themselves from this one. The products are different. The process is different. The market dynamics are different. This is hardly a bellwether for the future of fair use in the domain of AI.

0 reposts0 likes

Second, Ross should’ve won. The raw material they copied in the process of training their AI tool wasn’t really expressive content at all.

West headnotes are just robotic restatements of public domain judicial opinions. They are the textual equivalent of the three-dimensional car scans in the meshwerks case.

The goal of headnotes is not to express anything at all, but rather to capture and reproduce as accurately as possible, already existing public domain expressions, facts and ideas.

This case should have been lost on copyrightability before it ever got to the question of fair use. Third, the outcome is obviously terrible policy.