“Groundbreaking Ruling: How a Landmark Case is Redefining Copyright in the Age of AI”
The next line of argument — which I have already heard — is “this case does not involve generative AI, so it does not matter to those cases.” While it is true that this is not a generative AI case, I cannot see how that makes this case less impactful. Frankly, if there was output that competed with the input, I think the Court would have had an easier time simply finding infringement. All AI starts with the type of copying and training done by Ross. Some AI systems then make further copies. The Ross case might not be the same as a generative AI case, but it is more similar than anything else decided to date. This case involves training, as do the other pending AI cases.
