The ongoing legal battle between OpenAI and news agency Asian News International (ANI) over the alleged unauthorized use of ANI’s content in training ChatGPT has just taken a
The ongoing legal battle between OpenAI and news agency Asian News International (ANI) over the alleged unauthorized use of ANI’s content in training ChatGPT has just taken a new turn. On Monday, the Delhi High Court directed OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, to file a response to an application filed by the Indian Music Industry (IMI) seeking to intervene in the lawsuit. This move has added further complexity to a case that could have significant ramifications for copyright law in the age of AI.
ANI initially filed the lawsuit against OpenAI in the Delhi High Court, accusing the AI company of using its news content without authorization to train its language model, ChatGPT. The case raises serious questions about copyright infringement in the rapidly evolving AI landscape, particularly how copyrighted content is being used to train AI models that can generate text based on vast amounts of data, including news articles.
The Indian Music Industry (IMI), along with T-Series and Saregama India, recently filed applications to join the case, citing their concerns that their copyrighted content might also be used without permission in similar AI training processes. While the inclusion of IMI and other parties would expand the scope of the case, Justice Amit Bansal expressed reservations, emphasizing that the case shouldn’t be blown out of proportion. He remarked, “We can’t keep expanding the scope of the suit; you can file your own suit. Hundreds of industries may be affected by it.”
Despite Justice Bansal’s concerns, Senior Advocate Chander Lall, representing IMI, argued that the case directly impacts the Indian music industry and, by extension, copyright law in the country. Lall stressed that the decision in this case would have a lasting impact on how the Copyright Act is interpreted and enforced going forward, affecting not just news agencies but the entire entertainment sector, including music and other media industries.
Lall added, “What my Lord will decide will determine the Copyrights Act going forward. If we all file suits, it will create a bigger chaos.” His argument suggests that a unified approach by industry players like IMI is necessary to clarify the legal framework governing AI’s use of copyrighted materials.
OpenAI, through its legal representatives, acknowledged the concerns raised but pointed out that the matter is already scheduled for a hearing on February 21, 2025, and requested that the case be dealt with on the same day. Justice Amit Bansal concurred, allowing the application to proceed and asking all parties to respond.
In addition, the court has issued notices to all involved parties to submit their replies regarding the intervention application filed by IMI. Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing ANI, sought permission to file a response to IMI’s request, arguing that the dispute centers primarily around audio rights rather than news content. Adarsh Ramanujan, an Amicus Curiae, has been appointed to assist the court in understanding the broader legal implications of the case.
The outcome of this lawsuit could set a precedent for future cases involving AI-generated content and its potential impact on traditional copyright laws. If OpenAI is found to have used copyrighted material without permission, it could result in a significant shift in how AI companies approach the use of publicly available content for training their models. Additionally, the case could spark a broader conversation about the intersection of AI, copyright, and intellectual property rights in India and globally.
For industries beyond the music and news sectors, such as film, literature, and art, this case could help define the legal parameters for the use of their content by AI systems. As AI technologies continue to advance, the need for clear regulations and guidelines becomes increasingly urgent to avoid potential conflicts between creators and tech companies.
The next hearing, scheduled for February 21, 2025, promises to be a crucial moment in the case, as the court will likely decide whether to allow IMI’s intervention and whether the case should proceed with additional industry stakeholders involved. As more entities like T-Series and Saregama India look to protect their intellectual property, it remains to be seen how the judiciary will balance the interests of traditional content creators with the rise of AI and its transformative potential.
The case also comes at a time when global discussions around AI ethics, copyright law, and the role of tech giants in content usage are heating up. With both domestic and international attention on the matter, this case could play a pivotal role in shaping the future of AI and copyright policy in India.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, stakeholders from various sectors must closely follow the proceedings, as the outcome will likely influence how AI technology interacts with intellectual property in the coming years.
Source: Business Today
©2024 | businessnewsindia.in | All Rights Reserved.
