News
Appeals court published why AI-training was not fair use (training-use note for AI music creators). Non-generative legal search; not a Suno/Udio ruling
The Third Circuit opinion in Thomson Reuters / West Publishing v. ROSS Intelligence, No. 25-2153, filed/sealed 29 September 2026, is now a public PDF. 2,243 Westlaw headnotes are original; ROSS’s training use is not fair use. ROSS is non-generative legal search. Not a Suno/Udio generative-music ruling. Not legal advice.
What happened
The Third Circuit opinion in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH / West Publishing Corp. v. ROSS Intelligence Inc., No. 25-2153 — filed and sealed 29 September 2026 — is now a public PDF. Judge Montgomery-Reeves wrote for the court. The 2,243 Westlaw headnotes at issue are original. ROSS’s AI-training use is not fair use; the district court’s partial summary judgment stands. ROSS was non-generative legal search.
What changed
Until this PDF, the public record was the AFFIRMED judgment and a sealed opinion. Factor 1: commercial and only minimally transformative. Factor 4: harm to the original market and to a potential market for licensing headnotes as AI-training data. A footnote says DOJ generative-AI fair-use arguments “do not apply” here because ROSS’s platform cannot generate original expression.
Whose work this affects
This is a training-use note, and context for labels’ substitutive-competition theory only. It is not a fair-use ruling on generative music (Suno/Udio). The opinion addresses non-generative legal search. It does not rewrite distribution licenses or credit duties.
Do this today
On each live generation job, update one line on whether training rests on a license or a fair-use claim, and do not cite this PDF as a generative-music win.
Sources
Primary: Third Circuit opinion PDF. Plagiarism Today (1 October 2026) is secondary. Clickable URLs at the end.