Introduction:

The Delhi High Court is currently hearing a significant copyright infringement case, ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI Inc & Anr., where Asian News International (ANI) has sued OpenAI Inc., the creators of ChatGPT, for alleged unauthorized use of its copyrighted content. The case revolves around whether OpenAI’s use of ANI’s news content for training its large language model (LLM) constitutes copyright infringement and whether the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction over the matter. The Court appointed Dr. Arul George Scaria, a Professor of Law at NLSIU, as amicus curiae to provide independent legal insight. The case is being heard by Justice Amit Bansal, and the matter holds significance as it is the first lawsuit of its kind against OpenAI in India.

Arguments from ANI:

ANI contends that OpenAI’s ChatGPT unlawfully exploits its original news content for commercial gain without seeking permission or paying any license fees. ANI alleges that ChatGPT often reproduces its copyrighted news articles verbatim when responding to user queries, thereby infringing upon its intellectual property rights. Furthermore, ANI raises concerns over the phenomenon of “hallucinations,” where ChatGPT generates false attributions to ANI, potentially damaging its reputation and spreading misinformation that could lead to public disorder. ANI insists that OpenAI’s data usage is not covered under the “fair use” doctrine of Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, since the primary purpose of ChatGPT’s responses is commercial in nature. ANI further argues that OpenAI’s global AI operations, despite being headquartered in the U.S., fall under the purview of Indian law as ChatGPT is accessible and used in India. Thus, ANI maintains that the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction over the matter under Sections 20 and 62(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Arguments from OpenAI:

OpenAI, represented by legal counsel, challenges ANI’s claims on multiple fronts. First, it argues that ChatGPT does not store or provide verbatim reproduction of ANI’s articles but generates responses based on probabilistic text prediction, which qualifies as transformative use. OpenAI maintains that its LLM primarily engages in “non-expressive use” of copyrighted materials, a category that does not amount to infringement under copyright law. Additionally, OpenAI asserts that LLMs require vast amounts of data for effective training, and restricting access to copyrighted content would be detrimental to the development of AI technologies, particularly for startups and smaller enterprises that lack the resources to secure costly licenses. On the issue of jurisdiction, OpenAI contends that since its servers and primary business operations are located outside India, the Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. OpenAI also proposes that a clearer disclaimer on ChatGPT responses could address ANI’s concerns about misinformation and false attributions.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

During the hearing, amicus curiae Dr. Arul George Scaria affirmed the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction, stating that ANI’s base in Delhi and ChatGPT’s accessibility in India satisfy the conditions under CPC. Scaria explained that AI models like ChatGPT engage in both expressive and non-expressive use of copyrighted material, with non-expressive use generally not amounting to infringement. However, he acknowledged that certain instances of ChatGPT responses exhibited significant textual similarity with ANI’s content, raising concerns over potential copyright violations. Scaria also highlighted the global debate on fair use in AI training, emphasizing that there are currently 32 lawsuits worldwide on similar issues, with only one resolved by a Chinese court. He suggested that OpenAI should display a more prominent disclaimer on ChatGPT regarding data sources and accuracy to mitigate misinformation risks. Justice Amit Bansal took note of these arguments and reserved judgment on the matter, indicating that further hearings would explore the legal intricacies of AI-generated content and copyright law.