Delhi HC Gives OpenAI Relief in ANI Copyright Case, Sets Landmark AI Law Precedent
Delhi : In a significant ruling that could shape the future of artificial intelligence and copyright law in India, the Delhi High Court has held that OpenAI did not violate Indian copyright laws by using news agency ANI’s content to train ChatGPT. The judgment is the first in the country to examine how the Copyright Act, 1957 applies to generative AI technologies.
The decision, delivered by Justice Amit Bansal on July 24, comes in response to ANI’s lawsuit accusing OpenAI of using its news reports without permission to train its large language model (LLM). ANI has sought a permanent ban on the use of its content, deletion of stored material, and ₹2 crore in damages. While the main case is scheduled for trial from September 11, the court has rejected ANI’s request for interim relief.
What Was ANI’s Complaint?
ANI argued that OpenAI commercially benefited from its copyrighted news reports by using them to train ChatGPT without obtaining a licence. According to the agency, the AI model had stored and reproduced its content, amounting to copyright infringement.
The case attracted widespread attention, with organisations including the Indian Music Industry, the Federation of Indian Publishers and the Digital News Publishers Association joining the proceedings, highlighting the broader implications for publishers and content creators.
Indian Courts Can Hear the Case
OpenAI initially argued that since ChatGPT was trained on servers located outside India, the dispute should be handled by courts in California rather than India.
However, the Delhi High Court rejected this argument, stating that the alleged use of copyrighted material began in India even if the data was ultimately stored overseas. The court observed that accepting OpenAI’s argument would allow companies to bypass Indian copyright law simply by hosting servers abroad.
Court Finds No Copyright Violation in ChatGPT Responses
ANI also claimed that ChatGPT reproduced its copyrighted articles when users asked related questions.
The court disagreed, saying ChatGPT generates fresh responses instead of copying original articles. It ruled that responses produced through retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) were not substantially similar to ANI’s literary works and therefore did not amount to copyright infringement under Indian law.
AI Training Considered ‘Private Use’
The central issue before the court was whether using copyrighted material to train AI models qualifies as “fair dealing” under Section 52 of the Copyright Act.
Justice Bansal accepted OpenAI’s argument that training data is stored in a closed system accessible only to the AI model and not to the public. Since the material is neither publicly available nor distributed to users during training, the court held that this amounted to private use.
The judge further observed that the commercial nature of OpenAI’s business alone does not automatically disqualify it from claiming the fair dealing defence.
Why the Court Refused to Stop OpenAI
While considering ANI’s request for an interim injunction, the court also looked at the wider public impact.
It noted that immediately restraining OpenAI could hamper the growth of artificial intelligence in India and negatively affect millions of ChatGPT users, including those using the service for free. On this basis, the court refused to grant temporary relief against the company.
How India Differs from Global Cases
The ruling stands in contrast to several international decisions.
In the United States, courts have taken a stricter view in some AI copyright disputes. A major settlement involving Anthropic required compensation for copyrighted works obtained through pirated sources, while another US court ruled against fair use in an AI training dispute involving legal research content.
In Europe, France’s competition authority fined Google for using publishers’ content to train its AI chatbot without sufficient transparency.
Why This Judgment Matters
The Delhi High Court’s order marks a major milestone in India’s evolving AI legal framework. Although the final lawsuit is still pending, the ruling provides important guidance on three critical issues—whether Indian courts have jurisdiction, whether AI-generated responses infringe copyright, and whether AI training on copyrighted material can qualify as fair dealing.
The judgment is expected to influence future disputes involving AI companies, publishers and content creators as India continues to define the legal boundaries of artificial intelligence.
News source: Information for this article was gathered from a variety of reliable news outlets.
