Delhi High Court hears ANI’s copyright infringement case against OpenAI over AI training using news content. Court notes, “There is no urgency here, it’s largely an academic issue.”
New Delhi: Today, on July The Delhi High Court is currently hearing a copyright infringement case filed by Asian News International (ANI) against OpenAI OpCo LLC, the company behind ChatGPT. The case, titled ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI OpCo LLC (CS(COMM)- 1028/2024), is being heard by Justice Amit Bansal.
Advocate Sidhant Kumar is representing ANI in this matter. During the recent hearing, the court raised concerns about the involvement of intervenors (third parties who are not main parties in the case but have interest in the outcome).
Also Read: ANI vs OpenAI: Delhi High Court Hears Copyright Infringement Case Against ChatGPT
The Court questioned,
“How can an intervenor file an affidavit? Why should written submissions be filed at all?”
The judge made it clear that the intervenors should limit their content, stating,
“You cannot overload the record limit your response to just 2–3 pages.”
Following this, the court noted that the affidavit submitted by the intervenors was withdrawn.
Senior Advocate Chander Lal, appearing on behalf of the intervenors, argued that the main issue assumes that OpenAI is storing copyrighted material from ANI. He explained that
Also Read: [ANI vs. OpenAI] OpenAI Challenges Delhi High Court’s Jurisdiction in Copyright Case
“Fair dealing is not the same as fair use and that a copy is created and retained for training purposes.”
Lal further elaborated on the legal position, stating,
“If you are not a non-commercial public library and you make even one copy, you are infringing. Exemption only applies to non-commercial library. Reproduction and storage is different from fair dealing.”
In strong words, he continued,
“They are giving an absurd argument which is inconceivable. All reproduction exceptions do not apply to defendant. They scrape data, make copies, store it, and then use it for training. Their argument is that because training is permitted, all the preceding steps should also be considered permissible.”
Lal responded to the defense argument that facts cannot be copyrighted, by clarifying,
“One of the arguments is what is ANI doing they are picking up facts and you cannot have copyright facts. It is the expression of those facts which is protected.”
Drawing a comparison between U.S. and Indian law, Lal explained,
“Under US law fair use principles decide what is infringing and what is not. It is an open-ended issue but it is closed in our statute.”
To explain how ANI and OpenAI are direct competitors, Lal said,
“If I ask what the CM of Jammu and Kashmir day before yesterday I will get an answer from ChatGPT as well as ANI. They are direct competitors.”
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for OpenAI, defended the company by saying,
“We are accessing the material lawfully. If someone bypasses a paywall or hacks, that amounts to piracy as per his own rulings. Our access is not through any pirated source.”
Also Read: DNPA Joins ANI’s Fight Against OpenAI Over Unauthorized Use of News Content
The Court, however, observed that there was no immediate urgency in the matter and commented,
“There is no urgency here it’s largely an academic issue.”
Sibal also raised concerns about the conduct of intervenors, saying,
“Yet the intervenors are taking my pleadings, quoting them, and then filing responses.”
The next date of hearing in this case is July 30, 2024.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on ANI vs OpenAI
