Indian news agency ANI has initiated legal action against OpenAI, alleging that the company used ANI’s proprietary content without authorization to train its AI chatbot, ChatGPT. The lawsuit, filed in a New Delhi court, positions ANI among a growing list of global media organizations challenging OpenAI’s practices, including prominent lawsuits in the U.S. by newspapers like The New York Times and The Chicago Tribune.
The first hearing occurred on Tuesday in the New Delhi High Court, where a judge instructed OpenAI to provide a detailed response to ANI’s allegations. ANI contends that OpenAI’s use of its content without proper licensing breaches copyright laws and raises concerns about unfair competition. In its court submission, ANI highlighted that OpenAI has commercial agreements with other news outlets, such as the Financial Times and the Associated Press, granting them lawful usage rights.
A critical aspect of ANI’s complaint is the claim that OpenAI has attributed fabricated news stories to the agency. ANI’s filing also argues that ChatGPT retains ANI’s copyrighted works in its memory indefinitely, despite OpenAI’s assurance that its systems stopped using ANI’s content for training after the agency’s website was blocked in September. ANI asserts that there is no mechanism in place to erase previously ingested data.
OpenAI, in a statement, defended its practices, citing reliance on “publicly available data” under fair use principles and established legal precedents. It further emphasized its ongoing efforts to partner with media organizations globally, including in India, to secure licensing agreements. However, ANI’s filing accuses the company of refusing to seek proper permission or licensing for its original content.
The lawsuit also touches on the broader challenges AI companies face as they navigate copyright issues. OpenAI has been the target of similar lawsuits from authors, artists, and other copyright holders, accusing the company of exploiting their work without consent. OpenAI has consistently denied allegations of copyright infringement.
This case adds another layer to the ongoing debate about the ethical and legal boundaries of AI training, particularly when proprietary content is involved. The High Court’s decision will likely set a precedent for similar disputes in India and beyond.
