Delhi HC has jurisdiction in ANI vs OpenAI copyright case, says Amicus Scaria

New Delhi: Amicus curiae Arul George Scaria informed the Delhi High Court on Friday that it has jurisdiction to hear the copyright infringement suit filed by Asian News International (ANI) against OpenAI Inc., the creator of ChatGPT.

He argued before Justice Amit Bansal that the court's jurisdiction is valid as ANI is based in Delhi and ChatGPT is both used and accessed in India.

The Delhi High Court wrapped up a hearing in the ANI versus OpenAI copyright infringement case on Friday.

Scaria explained to the Delhi High Court that copyrighted material can be used in two ways—'expressive' and 'non-expressive'. He stated that "non-expressive use does not constitute copyright infringement," while "expressive use is permitted in certain cases." 

Scaria noted that, in most instances, OpenAI uses ANI's content in a 'non-expressive manner'. However, he acknowledged that some instances may involve 'expressive use', citing ANI’s examples where content showed up to '90% similarity'. While not copied verbatim, there are cases where the resemblance is significant.

Deviating from Scaria’s stance, Amicus Adarsh Ramanujan argued that the act of copying copyrighted material constitutes a completed act of copyright infringement unless for fair use permitted by the Copyright Act, 1957. 

In this case, the "copying" refers to OpenAI’s process of using ANI’s content to train its AI models. This process involves storing and processing the copyrighted material, which Ramanujan suggests qualifies as reproduction under India’s Copyright Act, 1957 specifically Section 14(1).

To keep it simple, Ramanujan stated that the fact that OpenAI copied ANI’s data to train its models in the first place without due permission qualifies as an act of infringement even if it is for non-expressive use which is permitted by the Indian law. The Indian Copyright Law allows non-expressive use for purposes like education and research.

Furthermore, Ramanujan emphasised that determining infringement requires considering the "intent for ascertaining purpose" and "imputation of knowledge."

This means the court must evaluate whether OpenAI intentionally used ANI’s content for a purpose that infringes copyright and whether OpenAI had knowledge or should have known that its actions could violate copyright law. This introduces a subjective element—OpenAI’s awareness or intent—into the analysis of infringement.

Ramanujan further argued that once the act of copying is established, infringement is considered complete unless OpenAI can demonstrate that its use of the copyrighted material falls under the exception of "fair use" (or, in the Indian context, "fair dealing" under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957). 

Fair use/fair dealing allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes like criticism, review, or research, but the burden lies with OpenAI to prove that its use qualifies.

The next hearing is on March 10, 2025.