Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, heard ANI’s copyright infringement plea against OpenAI, alleging unauthorized use of its content for training large language models. Advocate Sidhanth Kumar, representing ANI, argued that while facts could not be monopolized, journalistic expression remained protected under copyright law. He asserted that OpenAI continued to access ANI’s content, directly or through its subscribers, despite claims of discontinuation. 

The bench of Justice Amit Bansal, however, directed that all written statements be submitted before the next hearing and scheduled the matter for further proceedings on March 28, 2025.

During the proceedings, Advocate Kumar read out OpenAI’s response to the cease and desist notice issued by ANI. He argued that while OpenAI claimed not to use ANI’s content directly, it sourced material from ANI’s subscribers, including Economic Times, which had a licensed agreement to publish ANI’s content.

Advocate Kumar emphasized that OpenAI continued to scrape ANI’s content despite asserting otherwise. He presented a screenshot of OpenAI’s service responding to a prompt requesting recent headlines from ANI’s news portal. He also pointed out that ANI had provided an exclusive interview at 2:22 PM, which was available only to subscribers, yet the same interview was found on OpenAI’s platform.

OpenAI, in its response, questioned whether news articles were eligible for copyright protection. Advocate Kumar cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in RG Anand v. Delux Films [1978 AIR 1613], arguing that while facts were not subject to copyright, the journalistic expression used to present them was protected. He further contended that both articles and interviews fell within the ambit of copyright law, as they involved unique expressions of factual information. The court acknowledged this argument, stating that the form of expression was always subject to copyright.

Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, representing OpenAI, countered that quotations from public figures were matters of fact and not subject to copyright. He asserted that ANI had failed to establish a clear case for copyright infringement, as it had not submitted employment contracts proving that copyright over the content belonged to ANI rather than individual authors.

Advocate Kumar clarified that ANI employed both full-time staff and consultants under agreements ensuring exclusivity. He cited Sections 17 and 18 of the Copyright Act, emphasizing that ANI had complete rights over the content created by its contributors. He also argued that the infringement began at the stage of data collection when OpenAI scraped publicly available content. 

Advocate Kumar further asserted that search engines typically required a license to reproduce content, and OpenAI could not claim exemption under copyright law by merely identifying itself as a search engine. 

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sibal admitted that OpenAI did not hold any licenses for ANI’s content. However, he mentioned that OpenAI had an agreement with the Financial Times, which permitted content reproduction for promotional purposes. The court questioned whether Financial Times compensated OpenAI for this arrangement, to which Senior Advocate Sibal affirmed that it did.

Amicus Curiae Arul George Scaria, in the last hearing, remarked that “Courts should adopt a two-step approach. Firstly, we should decide whether the concerned use falls under exceptions like private/personal use, criticism/review, or reporting of current events. Secondly, we should employ a fairness analysis”.

For Plaintiff: Advocate Sidhanth Kumar
For Defendant: Senior Advocate Amit Sibal
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt Ltd v OpenAI Inc (CS COMM 1028/2024)