GenAI Weekend Reads
Thoughts on Thomson Reuters v Ross and the U.S. Copyright Office report
First:
The U.S. District Court in Delaware recently ruled in Thomson Reuters v. Ross. Those scrubbing data have closely monitored this case for their LLMs because of its implications for a fair use defense.
I’ve provided a link if you want to read the 23 pages. You probably don’t. However, if you are interested in how a court decides fair use cases, pages 16-23 offer an instructive look at how fair use is determined and what defines what is essential.
I’ve included a link to an article by Chad A. Rutkowski of BakerHostetler titled " What Thomson Reuters v. Ross Does and Doesn’t Say About Fair Use and Generative AI. “ Chad argues that both those who believe it undermines the fair-use defense and those who think this case is irrelevant to GenAI are mistaken. He states, “It is neither of those things.” On page 2, Chad differentiates between “small models” and LLMs, offering an intriguing perspective from an attorney’s viewpoint. Ultimately, those hoping to receive a ruling clarity from this important case must wait for future court decisions; nothing about GenAI and copyright infringement is simple or straightforward.
Second:
You may have seen or heard about the U.S. Copyright Office's January release titled, “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence. " This release discusses the copyrightability of works created using GenAI.
It is a compendium of the responses received from a 2023 Notice of Inquiry (NOI) representing copyright owners and consumers. It is approximately 35 pages long and provides many valuable insights. Keep in mind that the Copyright Office does not create or enforce laws. Although it holds significant weight, its role is solely advisory.
Two key points emerged as I read through the report.
1) The report explains how, whether intentionally or not, to circumvent the issue of GenAI works not being copyrightable (pg 12).
2) They argue that existing laws can address questions of copyrightability and AI without necessitating legislative change.
The report illustrates the importance of monitoring evolving case law when creating a product using GenAI.
A final point: the Copyright Alliance believes that “low quality, AI-generated works will overtake [o]ur popular culture.” I don’t think that’s the case, but many in the Christian publication space may. Watch for it and be prepared to defend against it.
Blessings, and have a great weekend!
Bruce Erickson © 2025 This article is licensed Attribution CC BY-SA 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa).