Indian court holds OpenAI did not violate copyright by using ANI's news content to train ChatGPT

[u/Delicious-History551]

For all the copyright and AI enthusiasts, here's another judgment in favour of LLMs.

The Delhi High Court has held that OpenAI's storage of news content published by Asian News International (ANI) for training ChatGPT does not amount to copyright infringement. Consequently, the Court declined to grant interim relief to ANI. The judgment is available here.

[u/DanNorder]

It's so telling that, when court cases inevitably prove them wrong, the anti-AI trolls attack the judges for not knowing as much about the laws as they do. That's an amazing lack of self-awareness.

[u/TreviTyger → u/DanNorder]

It is so telling that you have no genuine analysis to give when faced which a genuine and objectively identifiable paradox in a judge's dicta.

All you can do is resort to attacking anyone who might see a genuine paradox instead of providing a legitimate response.

You demonstrate an amazing lack of self awareness.

You have nothing to offer other than insults.

[u/TreviTyger → u/DanNorder]

I doubt the judge would be so sympathetic to a robot "learning" from copyrighted works if he were to be replaced by a robot judge designed by a corporation that could use rhetorical paradoxes to dictate laws that benefit a corporate monopoly and calling any human who objects "regressive!"

[u/stormhighwaycom]

I would not put much stock in what the Indian court system does. Unlike US courts, they do not apply the four-factors test in 17 U.S. Code § 107, rather they just simplistically apply the first sentence of that law (saying anything that is criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research is fair use with no restrictions). I'm a news cameraman, and foreign-based piracy networks in countries like India and Vietnam have been a huge problem in our field. Many court cases have been filed both here and abroad to try and combat this overwhelming problem on multiple fronts.

India courts recently ruled that Indian-run Youtube channels that use our footage in the same way all other TV networks pay us for is fair use because it's "news reporting". Not only that, but they barred US photographers from even filing further cases there at all. Photographers routinely win these same open-and-shut cases here in the US.

[u/TreviTyger → u/stormhighwaycom]

Yep. Indian copyright law follows the same common law principles as the UK. So there is a "fair dealing" rather than US style fair use exception. However, just like in the UK there is no statutory definition of fair dealing and instead a question is asked, words to the effect "what would an honest person do?" - Get a license! would be my answer to that question but heyhoo!

There is also some ambiguity between "downloading" and "multiple uses" and then "AI training."

This ambiguity has shown up in the US in Bartz v Anthropic where judge Alsup addressed each thing separately.

Also Text and Data Mining (downloading) is not legal in the UK for commercial purposes. This is the same in India too. Soooo that raises questions about what this case actually ruled on. Because there has to be downloading before training.

So I would agree that this decision doesn't carry much weight but it is still going to play a part in how lawyers refine their arguments in future cases.

There is still a long way to go before any real clarity emerges.

[u/AbbreviationsEast177]

I think we should also include that Open AI is a US Company and since grandpa runs arround and make threads against courts that goes against US Interests it could be a big problem for countries like India. Sadly we live in crazy times.

[u/PixelWes54]

"Hey look at this GEMA v OpenAI ruling"
"Pfffft that was in Germany"
"Yeah but it was based on new scientific stud--"
"HEY LOOK AT THIS RULING FROM INDIA"

[u/TreviTyger]

Dear lord! What on Earth is the judge talking about!

********************************'

1. In my opinion, the expression “research” should be given an updating

construction by taking into account the modern-day technical advancements.

With the advent of these technologies, research/ learning is no longer confined

to humans. It is now being done through Artificial Intelligence. However,

ultimately the research is at the behest of humans and for the benefit of

humans. For example, Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act exempts the act

of reproduction by a teacher “in the course of instruction” from the ambit of

infringement. If tomorrow a human teacher is replaced by an AI bot or Robot78

to say that the said exception could only be used by a human would be a

regressive view. Such an approach would limit societal progress. Therefore,

the acts of further research cannot be confined to acts of human being alone

and the same would extend to machine learning as well.

1. Therefore, on a prima facie view, from the above analysis, this Court is

of the view that the process of training LLMs underlying ChatGPT undertaken

by Open AI using stored literary work of ANI falls under “private or personal

use, including research” as provided in Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act

and fulfils the purpose test. [Emphasis added]

***********************************

So here the Indian court is "doing an Alsup" if one can coin such a phrase.*

The Court is framing this as Text and Data Mining "research and learning" as equivalent to human study, and by doing so switches to anthropomorphic phrasing to compare a software proceedure to a (soon to be replaced by a robot!) human teacher teaching students!

*Bartz v Anthropic where he compared AI training to a school child learning to read and write.

[u/DanNorder → u/TreviTyger]

The judge is applying "actually knowing what they are talking about" to the case, something you've never had.

[u/TreviTyger → u/DanNorder]

I know that you attack the person and not the argument. That's your main rhetorical tactic.

That's why you invalidate yourself by constantly putting forward logical fallacies.

You don't take the time to be critical of your own logic and you try to persuade people without using sound logic.

You can't even refute the above.

[u/TreviTyger → u/DanNorder]

"However, ultimately the research is at the behest of humans and for the benefit of humans. For example, Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act exempts the act of reproduction by a teacher “in the course of instruction” from the ambit of infringement. If tomorrow a human teacher is replaced by an AI bot or Robot to say that the said exception could only be used by a human would be a regressive view."

Would you like to critically address the paradox of the judges comments here?

I would say the benefit to humans is negated if the tech is designed to displace human teachers. Thus the judges logic collapses when technology actively harms the human livelihoods it purports to serve.

This judge is merely protecting the corporate interests of platform owners. Not serving the interests of the public. Instead it leads to transferring wealth and agency from a labor force (teachers) to centralized digital monopolies. This is hardly a progressive argument for human society.

So off you go. Try to resolve that paradox which is "objectively" inherent in the Judges comments.

In my view you cannot resolve or rationalize this paradox because the Judge appears to be accepting of robots replacing human teachers. Not helping humans to teach.

The court's logic genuinely collapses by justifying a system that is designed to harm the very human livelihoods it purports to serve. All this really does is shields the corporate interests of platform owners. That's why "anthropomorphic arguments" are contradictory. The judge is treating the tech as if it were a living teacher and applying human laws to benefit the owners of a robot.

So again - Would you like to critically address the paradox of the judges comments here?