Back
ANI Challenges 's Defense as Delhi HC Division Bench Prepares to Hear Appeal
The legal battle over the use of copyrighted news content to train artificial intelligence models has escalated in India, with news agency moving the ’s Division Bench to challenge a single-judge order that denied it interim relief against . The appeal, listed for hearing on before Justices V Kameswaro Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, marks a pivotal moment in one of the most closely watched copyright disputes in the country.
ANI, the first Indian media house to sue for copyright violation, had sought an directing the AI company to stop storing, publishing, reproducing, or using its copyrighted works. On , Justice Amit Bansal declined that relief, holding that, at the interim stage, ’s storage of ANI’s original works for training the large language models underlying ChatGPT fell within the fair-dealing exception under . The court further found no between ChatGPT outputs and ANI’s original literary works, and concluded that ANI had not established a case for an injunction.
ANI now argues that the single judge’s interpretation improperly expands the scope of for commercial purposes beyond what the statute permits. “The public availability of its news content does not give the right to commercially exploit or reproduce the material for storage and training without authorisation,” the agency asserts. The appeal contends that copying and storing copyrighted works en masse to train a generative AI system cannot qualify as , especially when the defendant is a for-profit entity.
The case has attracted widespread attention from the news publishing industry. The , whose members include , , , , and almost every major Indian media house, has joined ANI in supporting the suit. The outcome will have significant implications for how copyright law applies to the training of generative AI systems, particularly whether the mass ingestion of copyrighted content qualifies as or .
A Setback for ANI, but the Fight Continues
Justice Bansal’s July ruling was the first Indian constitutional court decision to examine the fair-dealing exception in the specific context of AI training and large language models. The court acknowledged that AI training serves purposes including scientific and technological research, dissemination of information, education, and accessibility. Balancing these benefits against the rights of copyright owners, the single judge concluded that granting an at this stage would cause irreparable injury not only to but also to .
“ChatGPT has transformed information and is being used all around the world for beneficial purposes,” the judge observed, noting that an injunction would hinder the use of a tool that has gained global adoption. The court also stressed that its findings were confined to the interim application and would not determine the final outcome of the underlying suit.
ANI’s original suit, filed in , alleged unauthorised use of its copyrighted material by for training its models and raised concerns about the reproduction of ANI’s works in ChatGPT responses. The agency had sought directions to prevent from further storing, publishing, or using its works. However, the single judge held that ANI had not demonstrated that its works had been memorised and reproduced verbatim through ChatGPT responses, a key factor in establishing .
The Defense Under Scrutiny
At the heart of the dispute is the proper application of Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, which provides that a “” with a literary work for the purposes of research, private study, criticism, review, or reporting of current events does not constitute . ’s defense rests on the argument that its use of ANI’s publicly available news articles to train ChatGPT constitutes because it falls within research and development of AI systems.
ANI, however, counters that storing, reproducing, and commercially exploiting copyrighted content for model training goes far beyond the intended scope of the exception. The agency argues that the defendant is not using the works for the purposes enumerated in the statute but rather to build a commercial product that competes with the news industry. The appeal also raises the question of whether the “public availability” of content on the internet automatically grants a right to mass copy it for AI training.
The Division Bench will now examine whether Justice Bansal’s reasoning on was legally sound. The appellate judges will consider whether the interim findings that ChatGPT outputs are not substantially similar to ANI’s works and that no occurred are sufficient to deny at this stage. The court will also weigh the argument against the rights of copyright holders.
What This Means for the News Industry and AI Developers
The ’s eventual decision on this appeal will be closely watched not only by media companies but also by technology firms developing large language models. A ruling that affirms the defense could embolden AI companies to continue using copyrighted news content without licenses, potentially undermining the business models of news publishers. Conversely, a finding that such use exceeds could set a precedent requiring AI firms to obtain licenses or cease using copyrighted material for training.
The case also has implications beyond India. As countries grapple with the legal framework for generative AI, the ’s interpretation of section 52 could influence how similar statutory provisions are applied in other common law jurisdictions. The and ongoing litigation in the United States over in AI training highlight the global nature of this legal question.
ANI’s appeal also underscores the growing tension between AI innovation and intellectual property rights. Media organisations worldwide are increasingly asserting their rights against AI companies that scrape their content without permission. The ANI- case is part of a wave of lawsuits, including those filed by , , and others, that seek to define the boundaries of acceptable use.
The Division Bench Hearing: What to Expect
The appeal is listed before a division bench comprising Justice V Kameswaro Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora. The court will hear arguments on whether the single judge’s refusal to grant interim relief warrants interference at the appellate stage. While the July order was limited to the interim application, the division bench’s decision could shape the trajectory of the main suit.
ANI is expected to press its argument that the single judge erred in finding a case of , especially given the commercial nature of ’s use. The agency may also highlight the unprecedented scale of copying involved in training large language models, which goes far beyond traditional benchmarks.
, for its part, is likely to defend the interim ruling, emphasising the of its technology and the in allowing AI development to proceed. The company may also point to the lack of demonstrated harm to ANI and the difficulty of proving at an early stage.
Conclusion
The ’s division bench hearing on represents a critical juncture in India’s evolving copyright jurisprudence in the age of AI. The outcome will not only affect ANI and but will also send a signal to the entire news publishing industry and the technology sector about the legal risks and protections associated with using copyrighted content for AI training. As the debate between innovation and intellectual property rights intensifies, all eyes will be on the division bench’s decision.
