ANI v OpenAI: Delhi High Court Hears India's First AI Copyright Training Case

The Delhi High Court has reserved judgment in a landmark case that could define how Indian copyright law applies to generative artificial intelligence. The suit, brought by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against OpenAI, centres on whether the use of copyrighted news content to train the ChatGPT model constitutes copyright infringement under Indian law. Filed in November 2024, the case ran over dozens of hearings through March 2026 and represents India's first judicial examination of the copyright implications of AI training. The outcome will have significant consequences for publishers, technology companies, and anyone who creates or uses AI-generated content in India.

The Core Allegations: Scraping and Unauthorised Use

ANI alleges that OpenAI scraped its copyrighted news stories, including content behind paywalls, to train the large language model powering ChatGPT. The agency contends that this scraping occurred without authorisation, licence, or compensation, and that the resulting AI model can reproduce or closely paraphrase ANI's original reporting when prompted by users. ANI argues that this constitutes both reproduction and communication to the public of its copyrighted works under the Copyright Act, 1957. The agency has further argued that OpenAI's use is commercial in nature, given that ChatGPT is offered as a product to millions of users worldwide, and therefore cannot be excused by the statutory fair dealing exceptions available under Indian copyright law.

OpenAI's Defence: Fair Dealing and Transformative Use

OpenAI has defended its position by arguing that the training of AI models on publicly available text constitutes a transformative use of the underlying material. The company contends that the AI model does not store or reproduce the original articles in their complete form, but rather learns statistical patterns of language that enable it to generate new text. OpenAI has also invoked the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, arguing that the use of copyrighted material for research and the development of new technology falls within permissible limits. The key legal question is whether Indian law recognises a concept analogous to the transformative use doctrine that has been developed in US copyright jurisprudence, and whether the commercial nature of ChatGPT affects the fair dealing analysis.

Why This Case Matters for Indian Law and the AI Industry

India's Copyright Act, 1957 was drafted long before the advent of generative AI, and its fair dealing provisions are narrower than the US fair use doctrine. The Act permits fair dealing for purposes of private use, research, criticism, review, and reporting of current events, but does not contain an open-ended balancing test like Section 107 of the US Copyright Act. How the Delhi High Court interprets these provisions in the context of AI training will set a precedent for the entire AI ecosystem in India. If the Court rules that AI training on copyrighted material requires a licence, it could force AI companies to negotiate with content creators and publishers across India, fundamentally changing the cost structure of AI development. Conversely, a ruling in favour of OpenAI could leave content creators without recourse against large-scale data ingestion by AI systems.

Practical Takeaways for Content Creators and AI Companies

Publishers and content creators in India should monitor this case closely, as the judgment will determine whether they have enforceable rights against AI companies that use their content for training purposes. AI companies operating in India should begin assessing their data sourcing practices and considering whether licensing arrangements may be necessary depending on the outcome. Businesses that use AI-generated content should be aware that the legal status of such content remains unsettled in India, and reliance on AI outputs that closely mirror copyrighted material could carry infringement risk. The ANI v OpenAI case is not just a dispute between two parties; it is the case that will define the legal relationship between copyright holders and the AI industry in India for years to come.