Shreya Gupta
On 18th March 2025, the Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Bansal heard a copyright infringement case filed by Asian News International (ANI) against OpenAI, the developer of ChatGPT, over allegations that the AI chatbot has been utilizing ANI’s content without authorization. ANI contends that OpenAI has been directly extracting content from its website and scraping material shared with ANI’s subscribers, which it argues still falls under its copyright. ANI’s counsel, Advocate Sidhant Kumar, asserted that the news agency does not relinquish its copyright control merely because content is licensed to subscribers such as the Economic Times (ET) for a fee. He emphasized that while facts themselves may not be copyrighted, the specific manner in which ANI narrates and presents them carries copyright protection. Therefore, ANI argues that OpenAI’s alleged practice of extracting content from its subscribers, who legally access ANI’s materials, constitutes infringement.
During the proceedings, Kumar further argued that ANI’s unique editorial style and reporting approach qualify for copyright protection under Indian law. He pointed out that OpenAI’s argument—that facts cannot be copyrighted—does not hold when it comes to the particular way those facts are presented. To support his claim, Kumar stated that ANI’s articles are authored by journalists and refined by editors, meaning that the expression of facts in a specific format is protected. He also accused OpenAI of violating ANI’s rights by reproducing content from ANI’s translated interviews. He maintained that ANI holds independent intellectual property rights over its translations, and the act of making such translated interviews available on ChatGPT amounts to copyright infringement.
On behalf of OpenAI, Senior Advocate Amit Sibal countered ANI’s claims, asserting that the narration of facts by different entities will naturally have similarities, which does not amount to copyright infringement. He used the example of celebrity quotes appearing across different media outlets, arguing that such content cannot be monopolized by any one entity. Sibal further argued that ChatGPT does not directly reproduce ANI’s content but instead generates summaries in its own words while also directing users to the original sources. He also emphasized that OpenAI has licensing agreements with newspapers like the Financial Times, which legally permits the use of their content. Sibal distinguished ANI from traditional newspapers, stating that ANI only collects and distributes information rather than publishing its own newspaper.
The case before the Delhi High Court raises four key legal questions. First, the Court is considering whether OpenAI’s storage of ANI’s news content for training ChatGPT constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957. Second, the Court must determine whether ChatGPT’s generation of responses using ANI’s copyrighted content amounts to an infringement of ANI’s intellectual property. Third, the Court will assess whether OpenAI’s use of ANI’s copyrighted content qualifies as “fair use” under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Lastly, the jurisdictional issue is also under scrutiny, as the Court will examine whether it has the authority to hear the case given that OpenAI’s servers are located in the United States. The next hearing for the matter is scheduled for 28th March.
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. Open AI Inc & Anr.
Case Number: CS COMM 1028/2024
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal