Editing Openai/6924739c-2300-800e-9743-65c152c213f1 (section)

==== If you only had room for a handful of foreign authorities that are both substantively on-point and likely to be treated as serious comparative law by a U.S. federal court, I’d prioritise: ====
# CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada (Canada) – for both - copyright in headnotes / law-report enhancements, and - a structured, user-rights-oriented fair dealing framework.
# Eastern Book Company v D.B. Modak (India) – nearly a factual cousin to Thomson Reuters v ROSS: law report publisher vs digital database; headnotes and edited judgments; adoption of the CCH originality test.
# Sweet v Benning (UK) – historic but very on-point authority on copying headnotes into a digest, supporting strong protection for law-report editorial content.
# Infopaq (C-5/08) and Football Dataco (C-604/10) (EU/CJEU) – together they give a sophisticated foreign view on: - How small fragments (11 words) can be protected at the reproduction stage; - How selection/arrangement originality in a database is evaluated.
# DSM Directive Arts. 3–4 + Hamburg/LAION decision – to show that when AI training is meant to be privileged, many jurisdictions rely on explicit TDM exceptions (sometimes with opt-outs) rather than stretching general fair-use doctrines.
# Japan’s Article 30-4 – as a contrasting legislative choice to affirmatively permit broad AI training uses of copyrighted works.
# Optionally, SOCAN v Bell Canada – if you want a common-law Supreme Court decision aggressively expanding “research” and user rights in a technologically complex, commercial context.

If you tell me which side of the case you’re supporting (ROSS or Thomson Reuters), I can help narrow this down further into “good for us, bad for them” buckets and suggest how each authority could be framed rhetorically.