OpenAI has denied any wrongdoing, asserting that its operations fall under fair use as it relies on publicly available data, while ANI has taken measures to block OpenAI's crawlers from its website.

The amicus curiae also emphasized the importance of AI for India's technology sector, questioning the feasibility of developing large language models without using copyrighted information.

India's government has shown mixed approaches to AI regulation, balancing between minimal oversight and calls for stricter controls, which adds complexity to the legal landscape.

The Delhi High Court is currently hearing this significant case, which addresses ongoing legal challenges in India concerning artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights.

During the proceedings, an amicus curiae pointed out that accessing information from protected work does not necessarily equate to copyright infringement, referencing potential exemptions in the Copyright Act relevant to AI training.

ANI alleges that OpenAI acknowledged collecting its copyrighted content until October 2024, further complicating the legal landscape.

Current discussions indicate that AI regulation will likely be shaped more by future legislation than by judicial decisions, making the court's ruling in this case particularly important.

Asian News International (ANI) has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging that the company used its news content to train models like ChatGPT without permission, which ANI claims threatens the news syndication industry.

A ruling in favor of OpenAI could protect AI companies from future copyright claims, while a ruling against could impose significant licensing costs on AI developers, potentially affecting innovation.

This case represents the first major test of copyright laws regarding AI in the Global South, potentially setting a precedent for future cases.

Further hearings on the case are scheduled for March 20, 2025, with multiple media organizations seeking to intervene as petitioners.

OpenAI has contested the jurisdiction of Indian courts, arguing that it has no physical presence in India and its servers are located outside the country, complicating ANI's claims.