Delhi HC rules AI training can be fair dealing in ANI case

Legal experts weigh in as Delhi HC extends fair dealing to cover AI training in ANI-Open AI case

The Delhi High Court has refused to block OpenAI from using copyrighted news content to train its ChatGPT model, marking India’s first major judicial ruling on AI and copyright. In the case…

The Story in Brief

The Delhi High Court has refused to block OpenAI from using copyrighted news content to train its ChatGPT model, marking India’s first major judicial ruling on AI and copyright. In the case brought by Asian News International, Justice Amit Bansal held that training an AI model may qualify as 'private or personal use, including research' under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act. The court rejected ANI’s request for an injunction because the similarities between ChatGPT outputs and ANI’s articles were 'inadequate' to prove infringement at this stage.

Delhi HC rules AI training can be fair dealing in ANI case

Legal experts are divided on what the order means. Some say it effectively creates a text-and-data-mining exception that Parliament never wrote, while others stress the ruling is fact-specific and interim. The court also applied a three-factor test: whether the data was used only for training, whether it harms the news business, and whether the AI serves public interest. ANI is expected to appeal, and the Hindustan Times notes that the final trial will decide whether large language models actually 'memorise and regurgitate' substantial parts of protected works.

Delhi HC rules AI training can be fair dealing in ANI case

The Indian Opinion

Both sides are already spinning this interim order as a total win or a death blow for copyright. In truth, the ruling is deliberately narrow: it rests on a prima facie finding that ANI failed to show substantial reproduction, not on a blanket endorsement of data mining. The court stretched 'private or personal use' to cover for-profit AI training, but even the judge warned the final decision belongs to the trial. Until Parliament writes a clear text-and-data-mining exception or a publisher shows verbatim output, this debate remains a placeholder, not a precedent.


Sources (2): legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com, hindustantimes.com

This story was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above.

Updated: this story now draws on 2 sources.

Ask their opinion on this story
They have read this article, our coverage, and the web.
AI simulations of historical figures. Responses are generated from the historical record, not authentic statements.

0 Votes: 0 Upvotes, 0 Downvotes (0 Points)

Share your opinion

Loading Next Post...
Search Trending
Ask their opinion
Loading

Signing-in 3 seconds...

Signing-up 3 seconds...

All fields are required.