The Delhi High Court is currently investigating whether ChatGPT is a product of OpenAI infringes on the copyright of ANI (Asian News International) by using ANIs news, stories to train its AI model and generating results that are similar. This article explores the legal issues, brought up the pertinent provisions of the Copyright Act of 1957 and the cases wider implications for artificial intelligence and Indian copyright law.
The resolution of this case could have a significant impact on how copyright law and AI technology are combined in India affecting the way that tech companies and content producers bargain over their rights and responsibilities in the digital sphere. As AI develops, legal frameworks will have to adapt to the challenges of protecting intellectual property and creating content. Significant legal concerns have been raised globally by the use of copyrighted works to train AI models.
In India, the ANI v. OpenAI, The Delhi High Court case is currently pending. According to ANI, OpenAI exploited its exclusive news content through ChatGPT for profit and commercial use without permission and authorization. This is among the first cases in India involving generative AI and copyright infringement. Its ruling will significantly affect India’s AI, development licensing and content production.
Background
ANI is the leading Indian news organization. It disseminates online news articles protected under Copyright Law. ANI noticed that ChatGPT, a product of OpenAI was producing results that were either exact replicas of, or strikingly similar to the articles published by ANI.
In October 2024, ANI sent a cease-and-desist notice and offered OpenAI a licensing agreement, which it refused. at November 2024, ANI filed a copyright infringement complaint at the Delhi High Court. In February 2025, OpenAI responded by denying infringement and contesting or challenges the jurisdiction of Indian courts.
Legal Issues
The case brings up the following legal issues:
- Whether the Copyright Act, 1957 prohibit the use of copyrighted content to train a large language model (LLM) like ChatGPT?
- Whether the output of AI models trained on copyrighted data violate the works as adaptations or reproductions?
- Whether US-based companies like OpenAI are subject to territorial jurisdiction by Indian courts for violations committed in India?
- Whether Indian copyright law recognize AI-generated content as original?
Legal Framework
The Copyright Act of 1957
- Section 13 of The Copyright Act of 1957 protects copyright in original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works.
- Section 14 describes the copyright holder’s exclusive rights, which include the ability to reproduce, adapt, publish, and convey or communicate the work to the public.
- According to Section 51, copyright is infringed when someone does something without a license or authorization. that is the copyright holder’s exclusive right.
- Section 52 provides limited exceptions under “fair dealing,” which do not yet include AI training as a permissible use.
Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 addresses jurisdiction in circumstances where the defendant resides outside India yet the cause of action is based in India.
Originality and Modak Doctrine
In Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak [(2008) 1 SCC 1], the Supreme Court held that a piece of work needs to exhibit skill judgment and a minimal degree of creativity in order to be deemed unique. Labor-intensive, hard or simple mechanical jobs alone are not eligible. ANI further contends that ChatGPT’s outputs are not original because they lack creative input.
ANI Contentions
The Plaintiff, Asian News International (ANI), argues that OpenAI’s use of ANI news stories to train its ChatGPT AI model without permission or consent is a copyright violation. It is contended that such training, constitutes reproduction and adaptation under the Copyright Act because it includes copying protected work for commercial purposes.
ANI emphasizes that it had offered licensing terms to OpenAI, which were refused by them, and that the defendant continues to profit from the use of ANI’s content without agreement or acknowledgment.
ANI further asserts that ChatGPT’s outputs are substantially similar to its original reporting in terms of structure, facts, and even phrase syntax. Sample outputs were then submitted to demonstrate the alleged replication.
ANI argues that such use is not covered under any fair dealing exception under Section 52 of the Copyright Act. It also refers to the case of EBC v. D.B. Modak, arguing that AI-generated outputs lack the degree of creativity necessary to be considered original and are hence derivative and infringing.
Because ChatGPT has access in India, targets Indian users, and causes harm within the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction, thus Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code may be used to assert jurisdiction.
OpenAI’s Defence
OpenAI denies the allegations that led to infringement, asserting that the use of ANI’s content during training is non-expressive and merely statistical in nature.
It claims the model learns abstract patterns like grammar and syntax from a large corpus instead of fully storing or reproducing copyrighted text. As a result, any similarities between ChatGPT’s outputs and ANI’s content are coincidental rather than being substantially similar.
As stated by OpenAI, ChatGPT converts incoming data to generate new, non-infringing content. It is not a copy of the ANI articles.
OpenAI also challenges the jurisdiction of Indian courts, claiming that it has no physical presence, assets, or operations in India. Therefore, The Delhi High Court does not have territorial authority. Lastly it argues that the content was freely accessible and that OpenAI has not copied because copyright law only protects the expression of facts not the facts themselves.
Conclusion
ANI v. OpenAI represents a watershed event in Indian intellectual property law. The case highlights fundamental questions regarding the nature of creativity, authorship, and infringement in the age of machine-generated content. Whether the Delhi High Court rules in favour of ANI or OpenAI, the decision would set a precedent for how Indian law will deal with artificial intelligence and copyright in the future.
Judicial and legislative clarification on the matter is of vital importance. As artificial intelligence becomes more integrated into creative and commercial ecosystems, India’s legal frameworks must be updated to preserve rights holders’ interests without strangling innovation.
Reference
Harsh Gour, ‘ANI v. OpenAI in the Delhi HC: Everything so far and all that is at stake’ (The Leaflet, 17 March 2025) https://theleaflet.in/digital-rights/ani-v-openai-in-the-delhi-hc-everything-so-far-and-all-that-is-at-stake accessed 14 May 2025.
Author: Suhani Sharma
Link to similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/the-champak-trademark-controversy/
