Read Time: 08 minutes
During the last hearing, Advocate Sidhanth Kumar argued that OpenAI’s use of ANI’s content leads to unfair competition. Whereas Amicus Curiae Advocate Ramanujan clarified that language models predicted responses rather than storing ANI’s data directly. He emphasized that public accessibility did not nullify copyright, and Indian law lacked explicit exceptions for text and data mining.
OpenAI, on Friday before the Delhi High Court, claimed that there is no general prohibition on the use of data under the copyright law. Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, representing OpenAI, further explained his argument by using an example: “When I read a book, I am using it”. He argued that such usage does not imply a violation of copyright laws.
These observations were made in a petition filed by ANI Media against OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement related to the use of ANI's content for training artificial intelligence models. The case was argued before the Bench of Justice Amit Bansal by Advocate Sidhanth Kumar on behalf of ANI, while Senior Advocate Amit Sibal represented OpenAI.
During the proceedings, Advocate Kumar presented arguments on the classification of AI-generated content, emphasizing that such content could not be considered independent creative work. He argued that the expressions generated by AI must either qualify as original copyrighted material or as an adaptation of existing content. According to him, AI-generated outputs could not be classified as independent works since they were derived from pre-existing materials through mechanized processes.
Advocate Kumar referred to legal precedents, including case laws from the United States, to support his claim that AI-generated content does not fall under copyright protections. He cited the Eastern Book Company case and other rulings that recognized the effort and skill involved in content creation as elements deserving copyright protection. He further argued that headlines in newspapers and news articles were covered under copyright laws because they involved independent skill and judgment.
Advocate Kumar also addressed OpenAI’s defense, which contended that its training process involved transient storage and, therefore, did not constitute infringement. He countered this argument by citing a case where the court had rejected a similar ‘fair dealing’ defense, ruling that even providing a mere link to copyrighted material was insufficient acknowledgment.
The court intervened to state that OpenAI should first articulate its defense before ANI could counter the arguments. Following this, Senior Advocate Sibal, representing OpenAI, argued that the core issue was whether ChatGPT’s storage and use of ANI’s content constituted copyright infringement. He contended that the pre-training process took place outside India and that training data was stored on foreign servers, thereby raising questions about the applicability of Indian copyright law.
Senior Advocate Sibal further argued that copyright law should not be extended to actions occurring outside India. The court, however, noted that the plaintiff’s data resided in India, making the matter a subject of legal scrutiny. Senior Advocate Sibal also contended that extracting information did not necessarily amount to infringement and that there was no general prohibition on using data. He gave an analogy, stating that reading a book constituted using its content, but it did not amount to infringement. Moreover, he asserted that merely discovering a fact did not grant a monopoly over it.
In response to concerns about AI models reproducing copyrighted content verbatim, Senior Advocate Sibal clarified that OpenAI had refined its models to prevent such regurgitation. He stated that AI-generated responses were dynamic and varied based on each query, ensuring that no two responses were identical. He also emphasized that after the pre-training phase, OpenAI’s models no longer had access to the original training data. The court acknowledged the complexity of the arguments and concluded the hearing.
During previous hearing, Amicus Curiae Arul George Scaria suggested a two-step approach: first, determining if the use falls under exceptions like private use, criticism, or news reporting; second, conducting a fairness analysis to assess its legality.
For ANI: Advocates Sidhant Kumar, Akshit Mago, Manyaa Chandok, Om Batra, Anshika Saxena and Shagun ChopraFor OpenAI: Senior Advocate Amit Sibal with Advocates Sanjeev Kapoor, Nirupam Lodha, Madhav Khosla, Gautam Wadhwa, Moha Paranjpe, Vanshika Thapliyal, Ankit Handa, Darpan Sachdeva, Saksham Dhingra, Rajat Bector, For Intervenors: Advocates Ameet Datta, Ayush Hoonka, Riddima, Naimish Tewari, Akshay Natrajan and Harsh KaushikCase Title: Ani Media Pvt Ltd v Open AI (CS(COMM) 1028/2024)
Please Login or Register
