Kirti BalasubramanianPartner
Paarth SamdaniAssociate
Yashaswini HareeshAssociate
Key Developments
-
Suit filed against OpenAI for copyright infringement
In a significant move, ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. (ANI), a leading Indian news agency, has recently filed a lawsuit in India against OpenAI, a generative artificial intelligence company and the creator of ChatGPT, the large language model (LLM). ANI has alleged that OpenAI has used and stored its copyrighted news articles and other media to train LLMs without authorisation. ANI has also claimed that ChatGPT sometimes provides false information in response to certain prompts while citing ANI as the source, damaging its reputation and spreading misinformation. ANI had earlier also issued a legal notice to OpenAI against such use.
This suit follows several legal actions filed against OpenAI and other generative AI platforms globally.
The Delhi High Court has issued summons to OpenAI. OpenAI has argued that the suit is not maintainable as it does not operate any chatbot servers in India. It has also denied using ANI's copyrighted content, claiming that ANI has failed to identify any instance of reproduction of its copyrighted works. OpenAI also claims to have blocked ANI’s website to prevent its content from being used to train their models.
The Court has identified several crucial copyright issues, including:
- Whether storing ANI's data for training ChatGPT constitutes copyright infringement;
- Whether using ANI's data to generate responses infringes on its copyright;
- Whether OpenAI's use of copyrighted data qualifies as 'fair use' under Indian copyright law; and
- Whether Indian courts have jurisdiction to entertain this case.
The 'fair use' doctrine is particularly significant in this case, as Indian copyright law does not currently have a principle-based fair use exception to copyright infringement. The Court's examination and decision on these issues will have a profound impact on the interplay between copyright law, AI development and the creative industries in India.
To assist in this complex legal analysis requiring comparison with global legal positions, the Delhi High Court has appointed Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Advocate, and Dr. Arul George Scaria, Professor of Law at the National Law School of India University, as amici curiae. This case must be closely watched by the tech industry as it will set an important precedent for the future of AI in India.
-
India signs the Riyadh Design Law Treaty
After nearly two decades of negotiations and deliberations, the member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) adopted a landmark treaty governing the international protection of designs on 22 November 2024. India signed the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (DLT) soon after in a significant step towards modernising its design protection regime.
The DLT intends to foster an accessible international mechanism for the registration of designs. Its key benefits include reduced administrative and operational burdens by allowing designers to include several designs within the same registration application under certain defined conditions. The DLT also encourages contracting parties to create e-filing systems and facilitate the electronic exchange of priority documents. Further administrative updates from the Indian Designs Office regarding the implementation of DLT are awaited.
-
Delhi High Court clarifies the scope of the Regional Director’s powers in company name rectification
The Delhi High Court recently clarified the scope of the Regional Director’s (RD) powers under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013.1 The case arose from a dispute between two entities, both claiming rights to the ‘Panchhi’ trademark. The petitioner sought to have the respondent company’s name rectified due to the similarity with its own claimed trademark. The RD rejected the application, stating the petitioner had not proven ownership of the mark.
The Delhi High Court, however, overturned the RD’s decision, emphasising that the RD’s jurisdiction under Section 16 is limited to determining whether a company's name is identical or "too nearly resembles" an existing company name or registered trademark. The RD lacks the authority to adjudicate trademark ownership disputes, which fall under the purview of specialised Intellectual Property (IP) tribunals.
This decision has significant implications for companies seeking to protect their brand identities and provides much-needed clarity on the scope of the RD's powers. It also reinforces the distinction between company name rectification proceedings under Section 16 and trademark disputes.
-
Screenwriters Rights Association of India recognised as a Copyright Society
On 30 December 2024, the Screenwriters Rights Association of India (SRAI) was successfully registered as a Copyright Society under Section 33(3) of the Copyright Act, 1957, marking a new era for screenwriters in the Indian film industry.
SRAI is now empowered to manage copyrights for dramatic and related literary works, bringing significant changes for industry stakeholders. Film producers must now channel royalty payments through SRAI, ensuring transparency and proper compensation for screenwriters.
SRAI’s recognition is a significant advancement in protecting screenwriters’ rights. By centralising copyright administration and enforcement, SRAI aims to promote fair practices, transparency, and efficient royalty distribution. This development is expected to positively impact the Indian film industry by strengthening the legal position of screenwriters. It also brings India closer to international standards for copyright management and collective bargaining in the creative industries, as SRAI will now follow in the footsteps of established societies such as American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) in the United States, Performing Rights Society (PRS) in the United Kingdom, Italian Society of Authors and Publishers (SIAE) in Italy and German Society for Musical Performing and Mechanical Reproduction Rights (GEMA) in Germany. These societies exemplify the importance of centralised copyright management, fair royalties, and strong legal frameworks to protect the rights of writers and creators.
-
Delhi High Court rules that PhD theses are not exempt from right to information on the basis of intellectual property rights
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Right to Information (RTI) access to a PhD thesis, rejecting Jamia Millia Islamia University’s (JMIU) claim of exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 (RTI Act).2 JMIU had denied an RTI request for the thesis, citing Intellectual Property (IP) rights with commercial value and potential harm to a third party.
While the Delhi High Court acknowledged copyright protection over a PhD thesis, however it clarified that Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act requires a demonstration of both, the presence of commercial confidence, a trade secret, or intellectual property, and demonstrable harm to a third party's competitive position from its disclosure. The Court emphasised that a PhD thesis is primarily an academic document intended for public knowledge and research.
The Delhi High Court also highlighted that JMIU’s own regulations, as well as those of the University Grants Commission mandate making PhD theses accessible through the INFLIBNET depository, and the thesis in dispute had already been cited publicly. The Court found JMIU’s claims of commercial importance and competitive harm unsubstantiated, and prioritised public interest in transparency and academic advancement. Overturning the Central Information Commission's earlier decision, the Delhi High Court ordered JMIU to provide access to the thesis, emphasising that merely asserting IP rights is insufficient to deny RTI access to PhD theses.
This judgment has significant implications for academic research and the balance between IP rights and public access to information. It reinforces the principle that public interest in access to information should generally prevail over narrow claims of confidentiality, particularly in the context of academic research.
-
Orissa High Court holds copyright infringement disputes to be arbitrable
The Orissa High Court recently affirmed that copyright infringement disputes are arbitrable.3 In a dispute between partners of a movie business inherited from their father, the Court appointed an arbitrator to resolve the copyright and partnership agreement-related issues, providing an alternative to traditional litigation.
The Orissa High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vidya Drolia,4 clarifying the scope of the decision and building upon it. The High Court emphasised that Vidya Drolia did not prohibit arbitrating copyright infringement claims. While Vidya Drolia addressed actions in rem (rights against the world), it clarified that subordinate in personam rights (rights against a specific person) arising from in rem rights can be arbitrated. Copyright infringement, while involving a right in rem, becomes arbitrable when asserted against a specific individual. The Orissa High Court found the opposition to arbitration misplaced, aligning its decision with the framework established in Vidya Drolia.
This ruling provides a clearer path for resolving copyright disputes relating to rights inter-se contracting parties, outside the traditional court system.
[1]Panchhi Petha Store v Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) 773/2019
[2]Rajeev Kumar v Central Information Commission, W.P. (C) 10118/2021
[3] Shri Binaya Kumar Naik v Sanjay Kumar Naik and another, 2024 (III) ILR-CUT-32
[4] Vidya Drolia v Durga Trading Corporation, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 929
