India’s landmark case involving OpenAI’s rights draws in more aggrieved parties

The rise of generative AI has sparked an existential crisis for copyright owners worldwide.

By Anushree Rauta 

With its intervening application, the Indian Music Industry (IMI), along with Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd (T-Series) and Saregama India Ltd, seeks to participate in the ongoing litigation between ANI Media Pvt Ltd and OpenAI. IMI aims to present the music industry’s views on the legal issues concerning the use of music related copyrighted content by generative AI models.

At its core, this case is not just about ANI’s claims of copyright infringement but represents a much larger issue i.e., how generative AI interacts with and potentially undermines copyright protections in India.

Main issues in the ANI vs Open AI case

The Delhi High Court has identified the following key issues:

* Whether the storage by the Open AI of ANI’s data for training its software i.e., ChatGPT, would amount to copyright infringement? 

* Whether the use by Open AI of ANI’s copyrighted data in order to generate responses, would amount to copyright infringement? 

* Whether the Open AI’s use of data qualifies as ‘fair use’ in terms of Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. 

* Whether the Courts in India have jurisdiction to entertain the present lawsuit considering that the servers of the Open AI are located in the United States of America.

The rise of generative AI has sparked an existential crisis for copyright owners worldwide. The key question in this case is whether AI models can train on copyrighted material without consent of the copyright owners? Music labels, news agencies, film production houses, and other content creators stand to lose if their works are freely mined by AI without compensation or control.

IMI’s stake in the matter

IMI and its members hold extensive catalogues of copyrighted works (audio and audio-visual songs and underlying works). The potential exploitation of these works by AI without consent threatens their business models wherein licensing of their repertoire forms substantial portion of their revenue ensuring fair compensation for creators and rights holders. If AI companies bypass this framework by scraping content without consent, the economic foundation of copyright collapses.

The IMI intervention application was listed before the Delhi High Court on February 17, 2025, where Justice Amit Bansal hesitated to admit it, suggesting that IMI should file a separate suit due to concerns about the expanding scope of the case.

IMI’s counsel argued that the Court’s decision could impact all copyright holders and influence future interpretations of the Copyright Act. The plaintiff clarified that while the current case focuses on alleged infringement of literary works (texts generated by ChatGPT), IMI’s intervention relates to audio content. The Court granted two weeks for IMI to file a reply.

On February 21, 2025, the Court heard submissions from amicus curiae  Arul Scaria, who explained that AI models like ChatGPT do not store entire copyrighted works but instead learn patterns from publicly available data. He noted that instances of AI replicating copyrighted content often stem from "memorization," a technical issue that AI companies are working to reduce. The amicus curiae’s arguments will continue next month.

Open AI’s problems in the US

The Recording Industry Association of America has already filed lawsuits against AI music generators Suno and Udio on behalf of record labels such as Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group’s UMG Recordings, and Warner Records Inc. Generative AI has already demonstrated its ability to replicate voices and generate music outputs that are indistinguishable from original works. If left unchecked, AI-driven copyright infringement could devastate the industry, much like piracy did in the early 2000s.

Way forward

Recent media reports have revealed that AI platforms, including OpenAI, Stability AI, Google, Microsoft, and Meta, have entered into licensing deals with rights holders such as book publishers, music production houses, and social media platforms. These agreements allow AI platforms to train on data owned by these rights holders.

Around the world, regulators and courts are grappling with similar issues. The European Union is pushing for stronger AI copyright regulations, while the US is witnessing a surge in litigation against AI companies. India must not lag in establishing robust copyright protections against AI exploitation. The Delhi High Court must consider the wider implications of this case including on music industry.

The existing legal framework was not designed to address AI-related copyright disputes. Unlike the US, where fair use provides a broad defense, India operates under the narrower 'fair dealing' provision in Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. AI companies may attempt to claim a broad ‘fair use’ or ‘fair dealing’ exemption under Section 52. However, it will be interesting to see how the Delhi High Court strikes balance between the doctrine of fair use and guaranteed economic rights in favour of rights holder under the current copyright laws.

In the ANI matter the amicus Dr. Scaria informed the Delhi Court that Section 52 of the Copyright Act allows certain exceptions, such as for research and reporting current events and if ChatGPT uses copyrighted content only to identify linguistic patterns rather than replicating it verbatim, it may not constitute infringement. The effectiveness of opt-out systems like robots.txt, used by AI platforms, was also debated, with ANI arguing their insufficiency.

DeepSeek gives OpenAI a taste of it medicine

Ironically, OpenAI, which has been defending itself against similar copyright infringement claims, has now accused DeepSeek of unauthorized use of its own copyrighted material. This contradiction highlights the need for strong legal frameworks. One cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time!

This case strikes at the heart of protecting intellectual property, raising crucial questions about how copyright laws can balance fostering innovation while safeguarding creativity—the very foundation of IP protection.

(Anushree Rauta is an Equity Partner at ANM Global and heads their media and entertainment practice.)

The views expressed in this article are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization, entity, or client associated with the author. The views do not represent the stand of this publication.