>"How influential the latest appeals court ruling will be is debatable. The court found that Ross had effectively copy-pasted Thomson Reuters’ “headnotes,” or brief editorial summaries of legal issues, verbatim for its legal search engine, a practice that isn’t difficult to separate from fair use."

>"In fact, as Copyright Lately‘s Aaron Moss points out, even the AI industry called the latest ruling a win, with tech industry group Chamber of Progress senior director of AI Adam Eisgrau tweeting that the ruling “implicitly confirms that highly transformative gen AI training to produce a hugely multi-purpose model with substantial public benefit is likely fair use!”"

Looks like the company that got sued just copy pastaed protected content without making any type of change to make it fair use.

Not the "win" anti-AI people were looking for and the article seems to be misunderstood by most.

Seems as long as AI models use some form "transformative" method to train their AI, then it's fair use.