Indian Music Industry files intervention application in ANI v. OpenAI copyright case

In the ever-evolving domain of artificial intelligence (AI), India’s first AI copyright case, ANI v. OpenAI, has emerged, potentially shaping the future of copyright protection in India. The case raises the fundamental question: does generative AI’s use of copyrighted content constitute infringement?

The case was initiated by Asian News International (ANI), a prominent Indian news agency, against OpenAI, the creators of ChatGPT. ANI accused OpenAI of using its copyrighted content without proper authorization to train its AI models, including content exclusive to subscribers and not publicly accessible. OpenAI argued that its use of data falls under the fair use doctrine, as it transforms the data into a new, useful AI system rather than reproducing the original content. OpenAI also contended that the data used for training is publicly available, and thus, no permission is required.

In response to ANI’s lawsuit, the Indian Music Industry (IMI), along with major music companies like Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd (T-Series) and Saregama India, filed an intervention application to protect their copyrighted works from unauthorized use by AI models.

According to its official website, IMI is the apex body representing the interests of the recorded music industry in India. It is the second oldest music companies association in the world, engaged in defending, preserving, and developing the rights of the recorded music industry and actively promoting and encouraging the advancement of creativity and culture through sound recordings. IMI members include major record companies like Sony Music, Saregama India Ltd., Universal Music (India), Tips, Times Music, T-Series, Warner Music, and Zee Music.

IMI’s intervention application plays a major role in this case because its members possess extensive catalogs of copyrighted works, including audio and audiovisual songs. These works are the lifeblood of their business models, relying heavily on licensing agreements to ensure fair compensation for creators and rights holders. The potential unregulated exploitation of these works by AI poses an existential threat to their industry.

IMI contended that the unauthorized use of copyrighted works by AI models jeopardizes their business, which heavily relies on licensing revenue. They claim that if AI companies can scrape content without consent, it undermines the economic foundation of copyright protections. IMI argued that the music industry relies heavily on licensing agreements to ensure fair compensation for creators and rights holders. The unregulated use of copyrighted works by AI adversely affects these licensing agreements and the economic foundation of the industry. IMI challenged OpenAI’s defense that its use of copyrighted content falls under the fair use doctrine, asserting that the use of copyrighted music content by AI models does not qualify as fair use, as it directly impacts the economic interests of copyright holders and disrupts the balance intended by copyright law.

During the hearing in the Delhi High Court, Justice Amit Bansal observed that the scope of the suit could not be expanded widely, suggesting that IMI could file its own lawsuit. However, the counsel representing IMI argued that the organization is directly affected by the case and should be allowed to present its arguments on the legal issues at hand. The counsel for ANI requested permission to respond to the intervention application, claiming that the matter in question is related to audio rights. The court issued notices to all parties involved, allowing them to react and respond to the Indian Music Industry’s intervention application.

Author’s comments

Generative AI has ushered in an era of unprecedented technological advancement, but it has also raised profound questions about copyright protection. Music labels, news agencies, film production houses, and other content creators stand to lose significant revenue if their works are freely mined by AI without proper licensing or control. IMI’s intervention application addresses these issues and aims for a legal system that can effectively protect copyright owners in the age of AI. As AI technology continues to advance, it is crucial for legal systems worldwide to address the challenges it poses to copyright owners. The outcome of this case will set a precedent for how generative AI interacts with copyright protections in India and could influence similar cases in other jurisdictions.

← Back to News