HC experts differ in OpenAI copyright case

Experts appointed by the Delhi high court in the copyright infringement case between news agency ANI and OpenAI on Friday presented differing views on whether the artificial intelligence company’s use of ANI’s news content for training its ChatGPT software constituted a violation of copyright law.

Professor Arul George Scaria from the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) argued before a bench of justice Amit Bansal that OpenAI’s act of storing ANI data for training its software did not amount to infringement since OpenAI was using the data in a “non-expressive” manner -- extracting facts and underlying information rather than reproducing the content. Thus, this was permissible under copyright law. He added that both temporary and permanent storage of copyrighted material for learning purposes was allowed under existing legal framework. Preventing such use, Scaria said, could hinder the broader goal of copyright law, which is to encourage creation and dissemination of knowledge.

In contrast, advocate Adarsh Ramanujan maintained that OpenAI’s storage of ANI’s content constituted infringement the moment it copied the data without the owner’s consent. He argued that copying raw data to OpenAI’s servers without permission was a violation unless justified under the fair use doctrine. According to him, even if OpenAI stored the content only once and did not repeatedly save it, the act of initial copying was sufficient to establish infringement.

During the proceedings on Friday, the court also issued notices to two intervenors: the Indian Governance and Policy Project represented by senior advocate Akhil Sibal and advocate Aditya Gupta, which seeks to present its views on the policy implications of the case, and Flux Labs, a startup supporting OpenAI’s stance. Flux Labs represented by senior advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan and advocate Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj argued that extracting non-expressive data for training purposes should not be considered copyright infringement.

ANI’s lawsuit against OpenAI demands that the AI firm stop using its content, delete any stored materials, and pay damages of ₹2 crore. The agency contends that OpenAI trained its language model using ANI’s content without a proper license, thereby exploiting its work for commercial gain.

The case has drawn significant attention, with various industry groups, including the Indian Music Industry, the Federation of Indian Publishers, and the Digital News Publishers Association, supporting ANI’s position. On the other hand, Flux Labs is the first entity to back OpenAI in this dispute.

In November last year, the high court issued summons to OpenAI but refrained from immediately restraining it from using ANI’s content after the company informed the court that it had already blacklisted ANI’s domain in October to prevent further use of its news. The court also appointed amici curiae, acknowledging that the case raised complex legal questions in light of new technological advancements.

The key issues being considered by the court include whether the Delhi high court has jurisdiction over the case, given that OpenAI’s servers are based in the US and whether storing ANI’s data for training ChatGPT amounts to copyright infringement.

OpenAI, in its January reply, urged the court to dismiss the case, arguing that courts in California had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. It also reiterated that it uses data in a “non-expressive” manner. However, on January 28, the high court declined to rule on jurisdiction separately and decided to hear arguments on both jurisdiction and merits together.

Professor Scaria, on Friday, supported the high court’s jurisdiction over the case, citing OpenAI’s interactive services in India and ANI’s headquarters in New Delhi. He warned that denying AI models access to publicly available copyrighted content could worsen misinformation spread by such tools.

The next hearing is scheduled for March 10, when advocate Adarsh Ramanujan will continue his submissions. The case’s outcome is expected to have a significant impact on how copyright laws apply to AI-generated content and the protection of news agencies’ original work in the digital age.