Delhi High Court denies ANI interim relief in copyright case against OpenAI
The Facts
- The Delhi High Court refused to grant ANI an interim injunction that would have restrained OpenAI from using ANI's content while the copyright case proceeds.
- The court held, at the interim stage, that OpenAI's use or storage of ANI's published works for training large language models behind ChatGPT does not amount to copyright infringement.
- Justice Amit Bansal said the use of ANI's works for AI training is prima facie covered by the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act.
- The court found ANI had not shown that ChatGPT memorised, reproduced, or generated outputs substantially similar to ANI's original reports.
- ANI sued OpenAI in the Delhi High Court in November 2024, alleging that the company used its published content without permission to train AI models and that ChatGPT attributed fabricated stories to ANI.
- The ruling is being described by multiple outlets as the first substantive Indian court finding on whether AI companies can train large language models on copyrighted news content without a licence.
- The decision does not end the dispute; the main copyright suit will continue after the court's refusal to grant temporary relief.
Context
What did the court decide right now?
The court decided ANI was not entitled to interim relief, meaning OpenAI will not be temporarily barred from using ANI's content while the case continues. At this stage, the judge said the training use was prima facie protected under Section 52(1)(a) and did not amount to copyright infringement Hindu,Economic Times,cnbctv18.com.
Why did the court reject ANI's request for an interim injunction?
A key reason was that ANI did not show that ChatGPT had memorised or reproduced its reports, or that the chatbot's outputs were substantially similar to ANI's copyrighted works. The court therefore found ANI had not made the required prima facie case for temporary restraint Deccan Chronicle,Business Standard,Analytics Insight.
What remains unresolved after this order?
The underlying copyright lawsuit is still pending. This order addresses only interim relief, so the broader legal questions and evidence in ANI's claims against OpenAI will continue to be examined in the main case Economic Times,OpIndia,Statesman.
Where Left and Right agree, and where they split
- Where Left and Right agree
- At this stage, the court treated AI training on ANI’s published works as lawful absent evidence that ChatGPT reproduced ANI’s reporting.
- Where Left and Right split
- Whether the ruling is mainly about weakening news publishers’ leverage over their reporting, or about courts refusing to halt lawful AI development on unproven claims.
How left and right read it
The Delhi High Court let OpenAI keep using ANI’s content while the case continues, holding at this stage that training ChatGPT on those published works is prima facie fair dealing and not infringement, and finding no showing that ChatGPT reproduced ANI’s original reports. That is a major shift in power toward AI firms; if copyrighted news can be absorbed without a licence, what real protection remains for the institutions that produce public-interest reporting?
November 2024’s suit is still alive, but the Delhi High Court refused to impose an interim injunction and held, at this stage, that OpenAI’s training use is prima facie fair dealing rather than infringement. That matters because courts should not shut down lawful activity on thin showings, especially when ANI had not shown memorisation, reproduction, or substantially similar outputs. Due process and restraint matter most.
The receipts — all 34 sources
Wire services (2)
Independent coverage (32)
Facts first. Then every angle.
The day’s biggest stories in one short brief — the facts everyone agrees on, then the competing values behind the headlines. Free in your inbox.