Amid the chaos stirred up by Altman’s gang, here’s one refreshingly straight court decision. An AI startup gobbled some of Reuters Westlaw’s writing and produced its own versions, directly competing with Westlaw. The AI company claimed “fair use”. The judge wasn’t fooled or bribed:
= = = = = START QUOTE:
“Under ROSS’ framing, this case appears to concern the future of AI legal technology. But appearances can be deceiving. In truth, this is no more than an ordinary copyright case.”
Taking a look at the Westlaw headnotes’ originality, Montgomery-Reeves agreed the Reuters editors showed sufficient creative spark for legal protections.
“Each headnote had to convey enough factual background and reasoning to stand on its own without reference to the opinion or any other headnote, while accurately reflecting the corresponding opinion passage,” Montgomery-Reeves wrote. “Because these decisions show the requisite minimal ‘creative spark,’ the headnotes are original.”
= = = = = END QUOTE.
Thanks for welcome clarity!
Plain old copyright law is enough to knock down Altman’s gang, IF judges have enough guts to enforce plain old copyright law. There’s nothing fancy or complex. Westlaw pays human editors to write material, which is registered as copyrighted. The AI startup copied the material without paying, then sold it in direct competition.
I’ve been making this basic point forever. Copyright is not about creativity or authorship or ephemeral abstractions. It’s BUSINESS AND PROFIT. Publishers pay authors to make text or art. Publishers then sell copies of the work for money. Same process as dishes or cars or houses. Somebody develops the plan or mold, then the company uses the plan or mold to make copies and sell them.
