The rise of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) has sparked a global debate over how legal frameworks adapt to emerging technologies. AI continues to rely on massive datasets, mostly from publicly available content and copyrighted material. This has sparked concerns across all sectors, especially among the news media and publishing companies, regarding infringement of the intellectual property rights of their published content without proper authorization, leading to several lawsuits globally.

This article (“Article”) primarily focuses on the first prominent ongoing litigation in India, ANI Media’s case against OpenAIi, as well as potential solutions to address these evolving legal challenges. Additionally, it analyzes similar legal disputes outside India.

Background

ANI Media (“ANI/Agency”) filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in the Delhi High Courtii, alleging copyright infringement. ANI has claimed that OpenAI’s AI model, ChatGPT replicates ANI news items ‘verbatim’ and that OpenAI used ANI’s published content without obtaining ANI’s prior consent to train its AI models.

According to ANI, its journalistic work has been used to enhance OpenAI’s capabilities without its prior consent, constituting copyright violation and resulting in unwarranted economic and reputational damage to ANI. ANI has further claimed that ChatGPT falsely attributed fabricated news stories to the agency, thereby damaging its reputation and potentially spreading misinformationiii. ANI has claimed damages and a permanent injunction against OpenAI.

The issues framed by the Delhi High Court includes, (i) whether storing and using copyrighted data for AI training constitutes an infringement; (ii) whether such use constitutes ‘fair use’ under Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (“Indian Copyright Act”), and what is Indian court’s jurisdiction on OpenAI considering its servers are located outside India.

On the latest hearing on February 21, 2025, two amicus curiae were appointed by the court, and submitted their report stating that the courts in India have jurisdiction because ChatGPT’s services can be accessed in Delhiiv

Arguments Raised by ANI and OpenAI.

On the infringement of copyright issue, ANI Media has contended that the Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act bars unauthorized use of publicly accessible content, reinforcing its claim of copyright infringementv In response, OpenAI has argued that copyright law protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas or facts themselves, implying that no infringement occurred in this instance.vi

OpenAI raised a defense on the jurisdiction issue, contending that Indian courts lack jurisdiction since it does not have a physical presence in India. However, ANI has countered this argument by citing 2022 Delhi High Court ruling in Neetu Singh & Anr. v. Telegram & Orsvii wherein the High Court held that the location of data servers outside India does not preclude Indian courts from exercising jurisdiction over digital services accessible within the country.

The second key defense raised by OpenAI is based on the ‘fair use’ doctrine. OpenAI contended that its use of publicly available data falls under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, which, inter alia, permits limited utilization of copyrighted materials for purposes such as research and education. It argues that its usage is transformative as it trains AI models to generate new outputs rather than copying content directly. It uses publicly available data in limited portions that do not harm the market for the original works (since AI-generated outputs are not direct substitutes for the original content).

OpenAI’s defense of transformative and fair use was also argued in The New York Times v OpenAIviii. It referenced the U.S. Supreme Court’s judgment in Google LLC v. Oracle Americaix in which the Court ruled in favor of Google’s use of Java code in Android, stating that Google’s use was fair under the ‘fair use’ doctrine, mainly because the code was used to create a new and transformative product.

The Global Legal Battleground

Several legal precedents and many ongoing lawsuits underline concerns about the rising intersection between AI technology and copyright law. Some of them are discussed below.

A significant legal precedent in copyright cases involving AI was set recently in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence Incx when the U.S. District Court in Delaware decided in favour of Thomson Reuters granting partial summary judgment on direct infringement and fair use claims against Ross Intelligence. In this instant matter, an AI-powered legal research startup called Ross Intelligence was sued for using 2,243 Westlaw headnotes to train its AI legal research tool after being denied a licensing agreement.

The court in this matter, dismissed Ross’ ‘fair use’ defense, which emphasized that the ‘headnotes’ innovative synthesis of judicial opinions made them copyrightable. It concluded that Ross’s use was not revolutionary but rather commercial, which harmed Thomson Reuters’s potential AI training data market and was done to develop a competing legal research tool. The court further undermined the fair use argument by emphasizing that such use might hurt the original work’s marketxi. Although the court acknowledged the minimal creativity of the headnotes and Ross’s limited use in its final product, these factors carried less weight in the fair use defense raised by Ross Intelligence.

In Shanghai Character License Administrative Co., Ltd. (“SCLA”) v. a Generative AI Service Providerxii February 2024, SCLA, The Guangzhou Internet Court stated that the Ultraman figures are the original artistic creations, are protected under the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China and the images generated by the defendant’s website partially or fully resemble Ultraman figures.xiii

In Li v. Liuxiv November 2023, the Beijing Internet Court recognized copyright protection for an AI-generated image. The ruling stated that AI-generated works could be considered original and could be eligible for copyright protection under certain conditionsxv. The court paid special attention to the ‘intellectual achievement’ and ‘originality’ elementsxvi.

As mentioned above, in The New York Times v OpenAIxvii , the news agency sued OpenAI for using its stories to train AI models, resulting in copyright infringement. According to the news agency, the removal of Copyright Management Data (“CMI”) by OpenAI was done intentionally to hide copyright infringement.xviii OpenAI’s ability to generate outcomes like or unlike the Times has inferred a significant risk to the revenue and editorial integrity of the news agencyxix.

Raw Story Media v OpenAIxx is another such instance where the plaintiff alleged that OpenAI violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998, by removing CMI from their articles before using them to train ChatGPT. The courtxxi dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing as they did not demonstrate tangible injury from the alleged misuse of their copyrighted content in training ChatGPT.

In the UK, Getty Images v. Stability AIxxii, an ongoing lawsuit was filed by Getty Imagesxxiii before the High Court claiming that millions of its copyrighted photos were illegally collected by Stability AI to train its Stable Diffusion AI model.

These cases demonstrate the increased judicial scrutiny of AI’s use of copyrighted content as well as highlight the need for a shift towards stricter enforcement of intellectual property rights in the AI era.

Balancing Innovation and IP Rights

There is an increasing need for regulatory frameworks that balance AI technology advancements with intellectual property protection. Some potential measures to help address these concerns include providing Mandatory Licensing Agreements AI companies that use copyrighted material for training purposes, may be required to license such content from creators, ensuring fair compensation. Further, AI Companies should disclose their data sources, allowing content owners to opt in or out of AI training datasets. Legislators, globally, need to delineate the boundaries of fair use in the AI context, particularly in distinguishing between transformative and derivative works.

The core of these arguments revolves around balancing the rights of the content creators and technological advancements. The establishment of clear legal frameworks will play,

an important role in achieving AI development without the undermining of intellectual property protection.

The Way Forward

The ANI vs. OpenAI lawsuit will set a direction for AI development and intellectual property law intersection. It is necessary to create legal regulations that will accelerate technological progress while protecting the rights of content creators. While some laws provide a basis for addressing AI- related copyright disputes, there are many lacunas related to complexities of generative AI. Future regulations must ensure a fair legal framework that protects content creators while fostering technological advancements, creating a balanced approach supporting legal integrity and technological progress.

References:

i ANI Media Pvt Ltd v OpenAI Inc (Delhi HC, 2024)
ii The case was listed before the IPD Bench of Justice Amit Bansal at Delhi High Court on November 19, 2024.
iiiANI vs OpenAI: Delhi High Court Seeks Responses on Copyright Infringement Charges Against ChatGPT’ NDTV Profit (19 Nov,2024).
iv Delhi HC Has Jurisdiction to Hear ChatGPT Case, Amicus Curiae Tells Court Business Standard (New Delhi, 21 February 2025).
v Arpan Chaturvedi and Munsif Vengattil, ‘Indian news agency ANI sues OpenAI for unsanctioned content use in AI training’ Reuters (Online, Nov 20 ,2024) https://www.reuters.com accessed 11 February 2025.
vi Sakshi Sadashiv K, ‘Report: OpenAI Argues Indian Courts Lack Jurisdiction in ANI Copyright Case’ Medianama
(Online, 23 Jan ,2025) https://www.medianama.com accessed 11 February 2025
vii Neetu Singh v Telegram FZ LLC and Others ,2022 SCC Online Del 2634.
viii The New York Times v OpenAI 2023, 123-cv-11195
ixGoogle LLC v Oracle America, Inc, 141 S Ct 1183 (2021)
x Thomson Reuters Enter. Centre GmbH et al v. ROSS Intelligence Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025).
xi Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, ‘Thomson Reuters et al. v. Ross Intelligence Inc.: AI and Copyright Fair Use’(Finnegan, 21 February 2025)
xii  Shanghai Character License Administrative Co., Ltd. (SCLA) v. a Generative AI Service Provider,2024
xiii ‘Liability of AI Service Providers for Copyright Infringement: Guangzhou Internet Court reaches world’s first decision’ Bird & Bird (Online, APRIL 10,2024 ) https://www.twobirds.com accessed 11 February 2025.
xiv Li v. Liu,2023
xv The court applied a four-element test to determine whether the disputed image constitutes a work under Chinese Copyright Law: (1) belonging to the fields of literature, art, or science; (2) possessing originality; (3) having a form of expression; and (4) being a result of “intellectual achievement”
xvi Beijing Internet Court Grants Copyright to AI-Generated Image for the First Time’ Kluwer Copyright Blog
(Online, 2 Feb ,2024) https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com accessed 11 February 2025.
xvii Ibid., p. 2
xviii Kelly Kutsor, ‘The Overlooked Claim of The New York Times v OpenAI: Harm to Copyright Management Information’ JDSUPRA (Online, June 25, 2024) https://www.jdsupra.com accessed 11 February 2025.
xixAnurag Mohan Katarki, ‘OpenAI vs. The New York Times: A Pioneering Legal Battle Over AI and Copyright’
LiveLaw (Online, 20 March ,2024 ) https://www.livelaw.in accessed 11 February 2025.
xx Raw Story Media v. OpenAI Inc, 24 Civ. 01514
xxi Judge Colleen McMahon emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to show actual harm or instances where ChatGPT reproduced their copyrighted material without attribution.
xxii Getty Images v. Stability AI, 2023 EWHC 3090
xxiii Getty Images argued that parts of the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) apply only to tangible articles. They do not apply to software or intangible data. Stability AI contends it has not violated any copyrights since it did not directly copy any works. After denying Stability AI’s motion for summary judgment, the High Court has allowed Getty’s claims to proceed to trial.

Gaurav Gupta is the Founder and Managing Partner of Bridge Counsels & Sakshi Tripathi, is a final year student of B.A LLB at Llyod Law College, Uttar Pradesh, and interned at Bridge Counsels