The Indian court gave support to OpenAI: using news to train AI does not infringe, and the temporary injunction will strangle the local big model. With a ruling, the debate on whether AI training should be paid for news content has a one-sided outcome in India.

The Indian court gave support to OpenAI: using news to train AI does not infringe, and the temporary injunction will strangle the local big model. With a ruling, the debate on whether AI training should be paid for news content has been a one-sided victory in India. On July 24, local time, the Delhi High Court in India ruled that OpenAI’s use of Asia News International (ANI) content to train an artificial intelligence model did not constitute copyright infringement. Presiding judge Amit Bansal laid out two core reasons in his judgment. First, OpenAI’s behavior falls within the “fair use” exception for research as defined in India’s Copyright Act; second, ANI has never been able to submit any concessionary evidence to the court, proving that ChatGPT’s reply contains a direct copy of ANI’s copyrighted content. The two findings were superimposed, which directly shook the foundation of ANI's lawsuit from the ground up. What is more critical is the rejection of the injunction in the judgment. The judge emphasized that if a temporary injunction is issued at this time, not only will it not help the overall development of artificial intelligence, but it will hit the big language model project being nurtured in India; once the ban is implemented, it will also have widespread negative ripples on the public interest - the large number of users in India who use ChatGPT for free will be the first to feel the chill. In other words, the court placed "protecting a content party" and "dragring the entire industry and the public" on both ends of the balance, and ultimately bet on the latter. This is not an isolated case. The New York Times and other media have previously filed similar lawsuits against OpenAI in the United States, and the case is still pending. When the same type of disputes are advanced in different jurisdictions, India's ruling at least opens a gap for the accusation that "training is an infringement." via AI News (author: AI Base)