Delhi High Court’s Landmark Decision on AI Training and Copyright
In a pivotal decision on July 24, 2026, Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court issued a judgment that could become a cornerstone in addressing copyright issues related to the training of large language models (LLMs) in India. The case, ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI Opco LLC [CS(COMM) 1028/2024], examined the legality of training AI models using copyrighted material without explicit permission.
The Case: ANI Media v. OpenAI
ANI Media sought an interim injunction against OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement. ANI argued that OpenAI used its copyrighted news articles without a license for training its LLMs. Additionally, ANI claimed that ChatGPT, OpenAI’s AI model, substantially reproduced content from its news articles when generating responses.
In defense, OpenAI contended that the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction, as their servers and training occurred outside India. Furthermore, OpenAI argued that using publicly accessible content for training fell under ‘private’ use as outlined in Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and that ChatGPT’s outputs were distinct paraphrased responses, not substantial reproductions.
Court Findings on Jurisdiction and Fair Use
The Court dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, emphasizing that since ANI’s business operates in Delhi and OpenAI actively provides services in India, the Indian courts have territorial jurisdiction. The ruling highlighted that OpenAI’s terms of service specifying San Francisco as the place of adjudication were irrelevant when the alleged infringement impacts were felt in India.
On the question of fair use, the Court interpreted Section 52(1)(a) broadly, allowing for ‘private or personal use, including research.’ The Court ruled that commercial AI systems are not automatically excluded from fair use and that ‘private’ use could extend to entities like corporations. It emphasized that research is no longer limited to human efforts and includes AI processes.
More Read
Implications and Future Considerations
This decision is the first in India to establish a structured, factor-based test for evaluating fair use in the context of AI and LLMs. The Court’s technologically neutral approach suggests that copyright law must evolve alongside technological advancements. The judgment strengthens the position of AI developers, potentially reducing the necessity for them to enter into licensing agreements with publishers.
While the interim order offers a temporary reprieve for AI platforms, unresolved questions about memorization of copyrighted works and the legality of AI training on such content remain. The final judgment will be crucial in shaping India’s approach to AI and copyright law.
As OpenAI faces similar litigation globally, this decision will be closely watched by international stakeholders as a potential model for addressing the intersection of copyright law and generative AI.
More Read
About the Authors
Gaurav Bhalla is a Partner and Parag Singhal is a Senior Associate at Ahlawat & Associates.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Bar & Bench.
