OpenAI in legal trouble: Delhi HC summons ChatGPT company over ANI copyright infringement allegation

Written By Varsha Agarwal | Updated: Nov 19, 2024, 01:52 PM IST

The court said that it would appoint an amicus curia in the case considering the importance of copyright infringement issues occurring due to AI models.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday summoned OpenAI, the American artificial intelligence research organisation, over copyright infringement allegations by the news agency, Asian News International (ANI). The news agency alleged that the company used their copyrighted material to train its AI chatbot, ChatGPT.

Justice Amit Bansal issued notice to OpenAI on ANI's application seeking interim directions against ChatGPT, as reported by Bar and Bench. The court said that it would appoint an amicus curiae in the case considering the importance of copyright infringement issues occurring due to AI models. 

Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, representing OpenAI, submitted that the ANI’s website has already blocked them to ensure that their content is not used by ChatGPT. However, Sidhant Kumar, appearing for ANI, argued, “ The software is provided with all the publicly available data which includes copyrighted content. And in this case, my content is a part of the data that is used to train.” 

Kumar further alleged that ChatGPT attributed false information to the news agency while blaming the company for exploiting and copying their content. He also claimed that ChatGPT is posing a threat to ANI’s reputation as it is giving certain false information and citing ANI as the source for it. This action can lead to the spread of fake news that may cause public disorder, he added. 

During the hearing, Justice Bansal also enquired if any case is filed against OpenAI outside India. Sibal submitted that ANI's suit is the first case against the American company in India. He added that OpenAI faced 13 lawsuits in the USA, two in Canada and one in Germany, however, no injunction has been granted against the chatbot. Sibal further argued that ANI has shown no instance in the reproduction of his material, hence it has no cause of action. He also noted that copyright laws don’t protect ideas or facts but expressions.