Delhi High Court Seeks Response from OpenAI on Copyright Infringement Case
The Delhi High Court has recently issued a notice to artificial intelligence research organization OpenAI regarding a series of new pleas from the Federation of Indian Publishers (FIPs) and the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA). These pleas pertain to a copyright infringement lawsuit initiated by the news agency ANI Media against the California-based company.
Background of the Case
In its lawsuit filed last year, ANI Media claimed that OpenAI unlawfully utilized original content published by the agency for commercial purposes. The news agency accused OpenAI of illegally training its generative AI chatbot, ChatGPT, on materials protected by copyright.
ANI Media further asserted that ChatGPT not only misused their content but also provided inaccurate information while citing ANI as the source. This, they argued, posed a significant threat to their reputation in the industry.
Intervention by Digital News Publishers
The group of digital news publishers in India made a move to intervene in the ongoing copyright case, requesting permission to join the litigation against ChatGPT, marking this as the first copyright infringement suit filed in India involving AI technology.
Concerns Raised by the FIPs
The Federation of Indian Publishers highlighted that ChatGPT generates book summaries and extracts from unlicensed online copies, thus harming the business interests of its members. They alleged that OpenAI had been using their literary works without proper authorization for the training of its chatbot.
DNPA’s Perspective
The Digital News Publishers Association, which represents numerous mainstream digital arms of TV and print organizations in India, shared its concerns regarding the unauthorized mass copying and use of copyrighted content to train AI models such as OpenAI’s Generative Pre-trained Transformer.
Judicial Remarks
During the hearing, Justice Amit Bansal expressed the need for caution, stating that the scope of the copyright suit should not be broadened by the intervenors. If the court allows the intervention application, the intervenors would be limited to addressing only the specific legal issues arising from the case.
OpenAI’s Defense
Senior counsel Amit Sibal, representing OpenAI, contended that the FIPs do not have the authority to file the intervention application. He raised significant concerns regarding jurisdiction, emphasizing that OpenAI’s operations and model training occur outside of India.
Sibal argued, “The Indian courts do not have jurisdiction over this matter as the training for ChatGPT is based outside India, making the cause of action not applicable under Indian jurisdiction.”
Terms of Use and Jurisdiction Issues
OpenAI maintained that since the servers and training data for ChatGPT are located outside India, the accessibility of their service within India alone does not justify Indian courts’ jurisdiction. Sibal pointed out that ANI’s grievance falls under OpenAI’s Terms of Use, which stipulates that the jurisdiction lies with courts in California, USA.
Next Steps and Future Hearings
The Delhi High Court indicated that it would consider the aspects of territorial jurisdiction while deliberating on ANI’s request for an interim injunction. The court has scheduled additional hearings on three dates: February 21, March 11, and March 18, to further examine the matter.
Conclusion
This ongoing legal battle raises important questions about copyright laws related to AI technology and sets a significant precedent for how such disputes are handled in the digital age. As the case unfolds, many in the publishing and tech industries will be closely watching the court’s decisions.
Questions and Answers
- What did ANI Media accuse OpenAI of doing?
ANI Media accused OpenAI of unlawfully using its original content to train ChatGPT for commercial gain, as well as citing ANI as a source for false information.
- Who are the intervenors in this case?
The intervenors are the Federation of Indian Publishers (FIPs) and the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), who seek to join the copyright infringement suit against OpenAI.
- What are the main concerns raised by the FIPs and DNPA?
The FIPs are concerned about ChatGPT generating book summaries and using copyrighted material without authorization, which impacts the business of its members. The DNPA highlighted issues regarding unauthorized mass copying for training AI models.
- What did OpenAI’s counsel argue regarding jurisdiction?
OpenAI’s counsel argued that Indian courts lack jurisdiction over the case since the training of ChatGPT occurs outside of India and that any grievances fall under OpenAI’s Terms of Use, which designate California courts for such matters.
- What will the court consider in the next hearings?
The court will consider the issue of territorial jurisdiction alongside ANI’s application for an interim injunction during the upcoming hearings scheduled for February 21, March 11, and March 18.
