Delhi High Court denies ANI interim relief in copyright case against OpenAI
How left and right are reading this
- Both agree
- At this stage, the court treated AI training on ANI’s published works as lawful absent evidence that ChatGPT reproduced ANI’s reporting.
- They split on
- 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.
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.
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.
View all 34 sources
Wire services (2)
Independent coverage (32)
About these frames
See this differently than someone you know would? Two ways to keep it going.
The dial works on any URL — paste an article you read elsewhere this week.