By Emilio B. Nicolas

AI copyright jurisprudence is set to have a big year in 2025. On February 11, 2025, a Delaware federal court issued the first major decision concerning the use of copyrighted material to train AI. The case is Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH v. ROSS Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del.). Thomson Reuters, the owner of Westlaw, sued Ross for using Westlaw headnotes—summaries of key points of law and case holdings—to train a competing, AI-driven legal research search engine. In a 23-page opinion, the court granted Thomson Reuters’s partial motion for summary judgement on its direct infringement claim and rejected Ross’s fair use defense.

Importantly, the court noted that Ross’s AI was not “generative AI (AI that writes new content itself). Rather, when a user enters a legal question, Ross spits back relevant judicial opinions that have already been written. That process resembles how Westlaw uses headnotes and key numbers to return a list of cases with fitting headnotes.”^[1] This supported a finding that Ross used the Westlaw headnotes to build a competing product, i.e., a for-profit legal research tool that serves the same purpose as, and is a potential market substitute for, Westlaw. Thus, the court weighed the first and fourth copyright fair use factors in Thomson Reuters’s favor and held that Ross’s use was not a fair use.

While the Thomson Reuters decision might be viewed as a hindrance to the AI development process, it is not the final word on the issue of copyright infringement in the AI training context. First, the decision could be reversed, remanded, or modified on appeal. That will depend on whether Ross appeals and on what grounds. Second, since Ross’s AI was not a “generative AI” platform, expect defendants in other AI copyright cases to distinguish the decision and its rationale along with the particular facts of their case. Fair use is a fact-specific inquiry. Third, to that point, substantive decisions in other AI training cases, including those involving generative AI platforms, are on the horizon.

Take, for example, Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:24-cv-03811-JSC (N.D. Cal.), where a group of music publishers has sued Anthropic over the use of copyrighted song lyrics to help train its generative AI assistant, “Claude.” In its pending motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ ancillary claims, Anthropic framed the fair use question as “a significant issue of first impression: whether it is fair use to make unseen intermediate copies of copyrighted works for the transformative purpose of training generative AI models like Claude.”^[2] Not surprisingly, the plaintiffs have already asked the court to take stock of the new Thomson Reuters decision.^[3]

Along with the AI training issue, courts are grappling with complicated copyright issues involving AI’s output. One issue is whether an AI-generated work that contains elements derived from a preexisting work is an infringement or fair use. The Concord Music case is an example. In addition to complaints about Claude’s AI training model, the plaintiff music publishers are seeking injunctive and monetary relief because the AI allegedly generates output containing their copyrighted song lyrics.^[4]

Another—more policy-driven—issue is whether AI-generated works deserve copyright protection. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, 687 F. Supp. 3d 140, 149-50 (D.D.C. 2023), the trial court upheld the Copyright Office’s refusal to register the copyright in an art image generated autonomously by the plaintiff-artist’s own AI system. The decision is currently on appeal. In a similar type of case, Allen v. Perlmutter, No. 1:24-cv-02665 (D. Colo.), the plaintiff-artist contends that copyright law should protect his AI-generated art because it was created with more human involvement than the art at issue in Thaler.^[5] A recent report by the Copyright Office will undoubtedly factor into both cases. In its report, the Copyright Office concluded that “if content is entirely generated by AI, it cannot be protected by copyright” because copyright protection is limited to works of “human” authorship.^[6]

The Thomson Reuters decision is just the beginning of a slate of AI copyright cases under close watch in 2025. Long-awaited guidance about the use and protection of copyrights in AI is on the horizon. Stay tuned.

[1] Memorandum Opinion at 17, Thomson Reuters, No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025), ECF No. 772.

[2] Motion to Dismiss at 15, Concord Music, No. 3:24-cv-03811-JSC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2024), ECF No. 205.

[3] Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority at 2, Concord Music, No. 3:24-cv-03811-JSC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2025), ECF No. 295.

[4] Complaint at ¶¶ 10-14, Concord Music, No. 3:24-cv-03811-JSC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2023), ECF No. 1.

[5] Complaint at ¶¶ 79, 88, Allen, No. 1:24-cv-02665 (D. Colo. Sept. 26, 2024), ECF No. 1 (alleging that, “Mr. Allen had a specific artistic idea, conceived of in his mind, and he used Midjourney as a tool to create an artistic expression of that idea”, and that “Thaler contrasts sharply with Mr. Allen, whose significant creative control and artistic input throughout the iterative process clearly distinguish his request for copyright protection from those situations where copyright registration should rightly be denied.”).

[6] U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability at 2 (Jan. 2025) (“For a work created using AI, like those created without it, a determination of copyrightability requires fact-specific consideration of the work and the circumstances of its creation. Where AI merely assists an author in the creative process, its use does not change the copyrightability of the output. At the other extreme, if content is entirely generated by AI, it cannot be protected by copyright.”).

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For questions related to AI copyright issues, please contact a member of the Intellectual Property practice.

Meet Emilio

Emilio B. Nicolas is a copyright, trademark, and media rights attorney in Jackson Walker’s Austin office. His practice involves litigation and transactional work, including IP and media rights protection, enforcement, and licensing for companies in the entertainment, media, and technology industries. Emilio has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America as Lawyer of the Year – Austin, Copyright Law (2024), Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America, and by Austin Monthly as one of “Austin’s Top Attorneys” for Intellectual Property Rights.