OpenAI Challenges ANI’s Copyright Lawsuit in Indian Court Over ChatGPT Training Data

OpenAI, the Microsoft-backed artificial intelligence firm, has informed an Indian court that any directive to delete the training data underpinning its ChatGPT service would conflict with its legal obligations in the United States. This assertion, made in a filing seen by Reuters, emphasizes OpenAI’s contention that the case brought against it by the Indian news agency ANI falls outside the jurisdiction of Indian courts since the company has no physical presence or data storage facilities in India.

The lawsuit, filed in November in Delhi, accuses OpenAI of using ANI’s published content without authorization to train its ChatGPT language model. ANI has demanded the removal of its data from ChatGPT’s memory and an assurance that such content will no longer be utilized in the future. This case represents one of the most closely monitored lawsuits regarding artificial intelligence and copyright in India, raising critical questions about the intersection of AI innovation and intellectual property rights.

In an 86-page filing submitted to the Delhi High Court on January 10, OpenAI outlined its position, reiterating that its AI systems adhere to the principle of fair use when leveraging publicly available data. It further stated that, as it is already defending similar litigation in the United States, U.S. laws require it to preserve training data during ongoing hearings, making any deletion requests from Indian courts legally untenable. OpenAI asserted that complying with such demands could potentially violate its obligations under U.S. law.

Despite OpenAI’s claim that it will no longer use ANI’s content for training purposes, ANI maintains that previously stored data must be deleted to prevent its continued presence in ChatGPT’s memory. ANI also expressed concerns about potential unfair competition, noting OpenAI’s commercial partnerships with other prominent news organizations, including Time magazine, the Financial Times, and Axel Springer. These collaborations enable OpenAI to display content from these sources, creating a competitive edge that ANI argues is unfair.

OpenAI, in its defense, alleged that ANI had attempted to manipulate ChatGPT by using verbatim extracts of its own articles as prompts to substantiate claims of copyright infringement. The company has also emphasized that it operates with no office, permanent establishment, or data storage servers located within India, further challenging the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction over the case.

In response, ANI has argued that the Delhi court has the authority to adjudicate the matter and intends to file a detailed rebuttal to OpenAI’s claims. ANI, in which Reuters holds a 26% interest, also stated its concerns regarding OpenAI’s commercial partnerships and how they could impact the competitive landscape of news distribution.

The case adds to a growing wave of global legal challenges faced by OpenAI and similar organizations over the use of copyrighted material in training AI models. In the United States, OpenAI is battling a high-profile lawsuit filed by The New York Times, among others, accusing the company of unauthorized use of copyrighted content.

The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear the case on January 28, setting the stage for a potentially landmark decision on the legal and ethical responsibilities of AI firms operating across international boundaries. Meanwhile, OpenAI continues its transition from a non-profit research organization to a for-profit enterprise, raising substantial funding to maintain its lead in the competitive AI race. Last year, the company secured $6.6 billion in funding and has signed agreements with major global media outlets to integrate their content into its AI models.

This case underscores the complex legal, ethical, and commercial challenges AI organizations face as they navigate global markets while grappling with differing national laws and regulations on copyright, data usage, and intellectual property. The outcome of the ANI lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for the use of copyrighted material in AI training and the broader regulation of artificial intelligence technologies worldwide.

- Advertisement -

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest Articles

error: Content is protected !!

Sign Up for CXO Digital Pulse Newsletters

Sign Up for CXO Digital Pulse Newsletters to Download the Research Report

Sign Up for CXO Digital Pulse Newsletters to Download the Coffee Table Book

Sign Up for CXO Digital Pulse Newsletters to Download the Vision 2023 Research Report

Download 8 Key Insights for Manufacturing for 2023 Report

Sign Up for CISO Handbook 2023

Download India’s Cybersecurity Outlook 2023 Report

Unlock Exclusive Insights: Access the article

Download CIO VISION 2024 Report

Share your details to download the report

Share your details to download the CISO Handbook 2024

Fill your details to Watch