The OpenAI ChatGPT ANI Copyright dispute has taken a significant turn before the Delhi High Court. Justice Amit Bansal refused to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI in a copyright suit filed by Asian News International (ANI Media Pvt. Ltd.).
Court Finds Prima Facie Fair Dealing
The Court delivered a 135-page interim order in ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI OpCo LLC & Ors.
Justice Amit Bansal examined OpenAI’s use of publicly available literary works to train the Large Language Models behind ChatGPT.
The Court accepted that electronic storage of copyrighted content can amount to reproduction under Section 14(a)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
However, the Judge held that such use may receive protection under Section 52(1)(a) of the Act.
The provision covers certain forms of fair dealing for private research.
Justice Bansal said that the term “private” does not necessarily apply only to individuals.
It can also cover a company operating within a closed system, the Court observed.
The Judge therefore held that OpenAI’s storage of ANI’s literary works for LLM training was prima facie protected by the fair dealing exception.
Court Warns Against Harming Indian AI Development
The Court also considered the possible impact of an interim injunction on India’s AI sector.
The judgment differs from the restrictive licensing approach discussed in a DPIIT working paper.
The Court noted that AI developers may face major difficulties if they must negotiate individual licences with millions of content creators.
Such a system could make large-scale LLM development commercially impractical.
The impact could prove especially serious for Indian AI startups.
Justice Bansal observed that an interim injunction could harm the growth of AI in India.
The Court also considered the impact on millions of Indian users.
Many users rely on ChatGPT for education, research, information, and other purposes.
The Court held that an injunction could therefore raise significant public interest concerns.
ANI Fails to Establish Immediate Market Harm
ANI argued that OpenAI’s use of copyrighted content caused serious and irreparable economic harm.
However, the Court found no concrete evidence of lost subscribers.
ANI also failed to establish losses in syndication revenue or advertising income.
The Court therefore found that the alleged financial injury could be calculated.
This finding became important while assessing ANI’s request for immediate interim relief.
Court Examines ChatGPT’s Generated Responses
The Court also considered claims that ChatGPT reproduced or memorised ANI’s copyrighted articles.
ANI argued that ChatGPT could reproduce protected news content during user interactions.
The Court examined the use of Retrieval-Augmented Generation techniques.
It found that ANI had not established substantial similarity between the generated responses and its original reports.
The Court also found no clear evidence of verbatim reproduction.
Therefore, the allegations did not justify an interim injunction at this stage.
Court Finds Potential Monetary Remedy
The Court also considered ANI’s earlier commercial discussions with OpenAI.
In October 2024, ANI had reportedly offered OpenAI a content licence worth $7.5 million.
The Court viewed this offer as significant.
It indicated that any potential financial injury could be quantified.
Therefore, monetary damages could provide a remedy if ANI ultimately succeeds in the main suit.
Court Accepts Indian Territorial Jurisdiction
OpenAI had also challenged the maintainability of the case before Indian courts.
However, the Delhi High Court rejected that objection at the interim stage.
The Court held that Indian courts could exercise territorial jurisdiction over the dispute.
The alleged harm occurred in India, which supported the Court’s jurisdiction.
The Court directed the main copyright suit to proceed on its merits.
Broader Impact on AI and Copyright Law
The OpenAI ChatGPT ANI Copyright dispute raises important questions about the future of AI development in India.
The case examines the relationship between copyright protection and LLM training.
It also raises questions about data storage, AI-generated outputs, fair dealing, and licensing models.
The Court has not finally decided the main copyright dispute.
Instead, it has refused interim relief after finding that ANI had not established sufficient grounds for an immediate injunction.
OpenAI was represented by Senior Advocate Amit Sibal.
The Digital News Publishers Association also intervened in support of ANI Media.
The main suit will now continue for a final determination on the copyright issues.
