Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal for Open AI, on November 19, asserted before the Delhi High Court that the copyright infringement suit filed by Asian News International (ANI) against unauthorized use of their content by ChatGPT is not maintainable in India.

The bench of Justice Amit Bansal sought it appropriate to appoint an Advocate as Amicus and listed the matter for January 28, 2024. 

Advocate Sidhanth Kumar, representing ANI,  contended that the company uses a language model to train its AI software which stores ANI’s content and makes it available for users. 

Sr Adv Sibal further stated that there were compelling reasons why, despite 13 lawsuits in the United States, two in Canada, and one in Germany, no injunction had ever been issued against the company since it began operations two years ago. 

Firstly, Sr Adv Sibal emphasized that no court had, on a prima facie basis, found any infringement of copyright. He clarified that copyright laws were not exclusive to India or the plaintiff. 

Secondly, it was asserted that the company operated transparently, clearly outlining on its website how information was collected. Thirdly, it was pointed out that facts were not subject to monopoly. Finally, he highlighted that OpenAI acted in good faith by providing protocols for websites to join a blocklist and restrict access to their data.

In response to the court's inquiry about other pending lawsuits, Sr Adv Sibal clarified that this was the sole case currently ongoing against OpenAI.

Sr Adv Sibal further argued that the platform did not access data or information illegitimately and explicitly avoided accessing content behind paywalls. He countered the plaintiff's claim of licensing paywall access, asserting that there was no conflict between their activity and OpenAI’s operations. 

Sr Adv Sibal elaborated that OpenAI operated with the intent to enhance creativity and efficiency. Since its inception in 2022, the company had no offices or servers in India, and none of ANI’s material has been reproduced in India. He stated that the allegations of data training occurred entirely outside India, negating the need for legal action in the country. 

Furthermore, it was maintained that ChatGPT’s responses never reproduced ANI’s content and that copyright law protected only the expression of ideas, not the ideas or facts themselves. He reiterated that ANI has failed to present any evidence of such reproduction by OpenAI.

Sr Adv Sibal explained that OpenAI gathered data, information, and facts from diverse sources, with news representing only a small fraction, and ANI’s contributions forming an even smaller subset. He emphasized that the information collected was transformed and never presented in ANI’s original expression. He compared the learning process to a student recalling knowledge gained from a textbook without directly referring to it, illustrating that OpenAI’s responses were independent of any specific source database.

Regarding allegations of misattribution, Sr Adv Sibal dismissed them as vague and lacking transparency. He noted that ANI did not claim to have received complaints from users about such instances. He concluded by clarifying that OpenAI’s software was automated, and answers could be influenced by the manipulation of queries.

For Plaintiff: Advocate Sidhanth Kumar
For Respondent: Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt Ltd v OpenAI Inc