# Incorporating Legal Structure in Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Case Study on Copyright Fair Use

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.02164 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.02164/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Legal and financial RAG, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation.
- Builds on 14 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 May 2025.

## Placed in

- Retrieval-augmented generation / [Legal and financial RAG](https://mlsanity.com/rag/legal-and-financial-rag/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10509/) (2022)
- [Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.08302/) (2023)
- [LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11462/) (2023)
- [From RAG to Memory: Non-Parametric Continual Learning for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14802/) (2025)
- [Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20362/) (2024)
- [Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.01301/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models in Law: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.03718/) (2023)
- [Dense X Retrieval: What Retrieval Granularity Should We Use?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06648/) (2023)
- [KG-RAG: Bridging the Gap Between Knowledge and Creativity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.12035/) (2024)
- [Sub-Sentence Encoder: Contrastive Learning of Propositional Semantic Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04335/) (2023)
- [Enhancing Structured-Data Retrieval with GraphRAG: Soccer Data Case Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.17580/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Challenges for Generative AI in Legal Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.18880/) (2025)
- [Towards Trustworthy Legal AI through LLM Agents and Formal Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21033/) (2025)
- [LegalGraphRAG: Multi-Agent Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Reliable Legal Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.28120/) (2026)
- [Temporal Decay of Co-Citation Predictability: A 20-Year Statute Retrieval Benchmark from 396M Ukrainian Court Citations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.17639/) (2026)
- [Which Changes Matter? Towards Trustworthy Legal AI via Relevance-Sensitive Evaluation and Solver-Grounded Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.26530/) (2026)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models as Components of Cognitive Computing architecture for Regulatory Knowledge Management](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.24352/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This paper presents a domain-specific implementation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) tailored to the Fair Use Doctrine in U.S. copyright law. Motivated by the increasing prevalence of DMCA takedowns and the lack of accessible legal support for content creators, we propose a structured approach that combines semantic search with legal knowledge graphs and court citation networks to improve retrieval quality and reasoning reliability. Our prototype models legal precedents at the statutory factor level (e.g., purpose, nature, amount, market effect) and incorporates citation-weighted graph representations to prioritize doctrinally authoritative sources. We use Chain-of-Thought reasoning and interleaved retrieval steps to better emulate legal reasoning. Preliminary testing suggests this method improves doctrinal relevance in the retrieval process, laying groundwork for future evaluation and deployment of LLM-based legal assistance tools.