The Supreme Court announced Friday it will not hear Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, effectively letting stand a lower court ruling that training AI on copyrighted material may constitute fair use. The decision—or rather, non-decision—has immediate implications for the thousands of artists, writers, and photographers currently suing AI companies.
What This Means
Without Supreme Court intervention, federal circuit courts will continue deciding these cases independently. The result? A patchwork of conflicting rulings depending on where you file suit. A photographer in California might get a different outcome than one in New York.
“This is the Wild West period,” said intellectual property attorney Sarah Chen. “Companies are essentially being told to proceed at their own risk.”
The Fair Use Question
At the heart of these cases is whether scraping billions of copyrighted works to train AI models constitutes “transformative” use under fair use doctrine. AI companies argue yes—their models create entirely new works. Content creators argue no—the training process directly competes with their livelihood.
What’s Next
The Thomson Reuters case now returns to trial court for fact-finding. Meanwhile, other major cases—including a class action by visual artists against Stability AI and Midjourney—continue moving through the system. Industry watchers expect a definitive ruling… eventually.
For creators, the advice remains unchanged: register your copyrights, document everything, and keep fighting. The legal landscape may be murky, but your rights aren’t imaginary.
Read more about AI and copyright law: Previous coverage on AI copyright cases