ANI Media Pvt Ltd filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against OpenAI through the Delhi High Court after accusing OpenAI of illegally training ChatGPT with ANI news material. The original journalistic content produced by ANI a leading Indian multimedia news agency faced unauthorized use which violated its exclusive copyright rights per section 17 and section 53 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957. The legal action takes place because an increasing number of observers worldwide examine how copyrighted materials end up in generative AI training processes. OpenAI has issued a formal response refuting the claims by denying that its operations come under Indian copyright law because its Large Language Models (LLMs) exclusively train outside Indian borders [ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. Open AI Inc & Anr]. Open AI Inc & Anr].
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal presented to the court that the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 does not apply its provisions outside national borders. According to OpenAI’s legal representative the complete training of Large Language Models (LLMs) takes place outside India which means processing news content from ANI does not qualify as copyright activity under Indian legislation. According to Sibal the expression of ideas gets copyright protection under law but the basic elements used by machine learning models do not qualify for such protection.
ANI Media Pvt Ltd presented legal arguments before the Indian court that OpenAI performed unauthorized copyright infringement when they trained ChatGPT by using ANI’s original journalistic material without permission. ANI argued that its news reports present original creative works because the research-led reporting process of editors transforms raw information into literary material eligible for Section 13 Copyright Act protection. ANI’s legal experts argued that unauthorized reproduction and processing of copyrighted content together with commercial purposes which occur anywhere violate the company’s Indian copyright protection rights. The plaintiffs claimed that Indian courts should exercise jurisdiction because ChatGPT releases its answers across Indian borders.
The Delhi High Court handles legal issues related to four fundamental points as part of ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. OpenAI Inc & Anr. OpenAI Inc & Anr. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 requires the court to decide if OpenAI’s storage alongside use of ANI’s content during ChatGPT training amounts to copyright infringement. The court must evaluate how OpenAI both creates and distributes responses to its users regarding potential infringements against ANI’s copyrighted content.
OpenAI must demonstrate compliance with the “fair dealing” provisions of Section 52 of the Copyright Act for its use of ANI’s content through a judicial assessment of their rights in generative AI applications. A fundamental jurisdictional issue emerges when determining if Indian courts have authority over cases involving entire data processing and server operations situated outside Indian borders especially in the United States.
The current copyright framework of India shows extensive limitations when addressing disputes related to artificial intelligence. AN vs OpenAI represents a legal battle concerning outdated Indian copyright law and its limitations to address automation algorithms and foreign territory infringements as described in SpicyIP’s article “ANI vs OpenAI: India’s Copyright Act is Outdated – Can It Deal With New Legal Conundrums?.” (Read Full Article here)
OpenAI defends against copyright violation by asserting the lack of expressiveness together with lack of copyright-protected content
According to Sibal ANI lacks the authority to claim sole possession of public domain linguistic structures along with grammatical frameworks. OpenAI trains models through enormous data ingestion from diverse sources rather than memorizing exact material during training according to their methods. International courts have not established ChatGPT to be guilty of copyright violation according to OpenAI while processing texts does not create unlawful action.
The main operation and objective of LLMs do not involve exact copying of copyrighted content as explained by Sibal. According to him ANI lacks evidence to prove ChatGPT has stored or directly duplicated ANI’s content which reduces ANI’s likelihood for success. The expert said exact content reproduction during AI training is viewed as a failure since such occurrences manifest rarely.
Significance of the Case: A Legal Precedent in AI and Copyright Law
This legal case established itself as an essential development point for Indian copyright law reform during the era of artificial intelligence emergence. The case demonstrates widespread conflicts which exist between old copyright standards and current artificial intelligence advancements especially regarding large language models (LLMs) and automated content tools. This lawsuit addresses multiple intricate issues regarding the capability of Copyright laws to handle critical cases involving data extraction, training AI models with inputs and the fair use provisions described in Section 52 of the Copyright Act.
The Court must resolve two critical issues through its judgment.
- The court needs to assess whether computer-generated content qualifies as a derivative work derived from protected materials.
- Indian legal authorities must determine their ability to exercise regulatory and judicial authority over artificial intelligence systems accessed in the country when those systems operate from foreign locations.
This case will set essential legal case law which will determine both Indian content usage policies for AI systems and worldwide discussions about AI tool governance. (Read here)
Authored by: Ms. Mehnaz Khatoon
Blogger, The IP Press
Leave a Reply