Since the launch of large language models(‘LLMs’), there have been debates regarding the legality of use of publicly available copyrighted works for training of LLM models. In a significant recent development, the Delhi High Court(‘Court’) has settled that debate by holding that use and storage of copyrighted works for training of LLMs do not, in the circumstances of the case, constitute copyright infringement and qualifies as ‘fair dealing’1.
Background of the Case:
A suit was filed by ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. (‘ANI’), a news agency, against OpenAI Opco LLC (‘OpenAI’) under the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Act’) seeking injunction against OpenAI’s use and storage of ANI’s copyrighted works (i.e., news articles, interviews etc.) for training its LLMs and generating responses through its AI chatbot ChatGPT.
After filing of the suit, multiple intervention applications were filed by the relevant stakeholders – some supporting the case of ANI and others supporting OpenAI.
This article shall cover the Court’s findings on the major issues, as under:
Jurisdiction of Indian Court
At the outset, the Court dealt with the issue whether the Indian courts even have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, considering that OpenAI’s servers are located in the United States of America (US). OpenAI claimed that two separate causes of action had been joined in the suit, namely: (i) the use of ANI’s works on OpenAI’s servers located outside India to train LLMs underlying ChatGPT and (ii) the responses received from ChatGPT that are allegedly similar to ANI’s copyrighted works. As OpenAI’s LLMs are trained in the US, it questioned the applicability of the Act outside the territory of India.
On the aspect of jurisdiction, the Court delved into the issues of territorial jurisdiction as well as applicability of the Act. The Court held that it had territorial jurisdiction because: (i) ANI’s principal place of business and registered office are located within its jurisdiction, (ii) OpenAI specifically targets/ offers its services to users across India, including those located within the Court’s jurisdiction; and (iii) the responses generated by OpenAI also took place within the Court’s jurisdiction.
Disclaimer: This update is for general information purposes only. It does not purport to provide comprehensive legal or other advice. The publisher and the contributors accept no responsibility for losses that may arise from reliance upon information contained in these publications.
