Open AI, the developer of ChatGPT, in its response to ANI’s copyright infringement suit against it in the Delhi High Court, has contended that Indian courts do not have jurisdiction to hear litigation against it..The organisation contended that neither Open AI nor the cause of action falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Indian courts. It emphasised that ChatGPT's servers and training data are located outside India, and that the accessibility of the service within India does not automatically confer jurisdiction..The Delhi High Court had on November 19 issued summons to Open AI in a suit filed by the Asian News International (ANI) over alleged unauthorised use of its content. The case is now expected to be heard on January 28. .In its reply, the organisation noted that deletion of training data, as prayed for by ANI would be in conflict with United States federal laws mandating preservation of evidence due to ongoing litigation in that country. Open AI is engaged in a litigation with New York Times over a similar issue. Thus, according to the organisation, granting such relief would compel the defendants to act in violation of obligations under US law.OpenAI has further contended that the Delhi High Court's Commercial Division lacks jurisdiction, as the suit combines multiple causes of action, some of which fall outside the scope of "commercial disputes" as defined under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It has argued that the defamation as claimed by ANI falls outside the definition of of commercial disputes under the Act.It claimed that ANI, as a user of ChatGPT, has consented to the platform's terms of use, which include clauses mandating arbitration for disputes, thereby subjecting such disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts in San Francisco, California. It is argued that ANI must, therefore, prosecute its dispute as per the terms of use. .OpenAI counters ANI's claim that storing its works for training a Large Language Model (LLM) constitutes copyright infringement under the Indian Copyright Act. It has contended that copyright law in India protects the expression of ideas, not the underlying facts or ideas themselves. It has argued that in the digital realm, the automated use of freely available online data for purposes like training LLM focus on analysing patterns. Since it does not store the data and relay it verbatim to the user, it does not violate copyright. That is, the freely available information is used to analyse the data and interpret it or convey it in simpler terms and not copy it and not for expressive purposes. The organisation has thus argued that use of such works is protected under the "fair use" exception, stating that the transformative purposes, such as machine training, are not substantial reproduction of the original work itself. Open AI has argued that ANI’s works constitute news reports with largely factual content, which cannot be copyrighted under Indian law..It has been contended that ChatGPT works on prompts from users; if the AI is prompted to reproduce the text in a certain way, it can do so. Open AI argued that ANI has attempted to manipulate ChatGPT by feeding it specific excerpts of their own articles as prompts, trying to force the model to reproduce their content. However, it is stated that these attempts have been unsuccessful as ChatGPT generates unique responses based on the input and its learned patterns, demonstrating its ability to generate original text.OpenAI extensively addressed the limitations of ChatGPT, including the potential for "hallucinations" – instances where the AI generates incorrect or nonsensical information. It further argued that ANI's claims of defamation stemming from ChatGPT's "hallucinations" are unfounded as they do not demonstrate actual harm or damage to the news agency's reputation.The organisation has also highlighted how AI has benefited humanity as a whole and has urged the Court to reject ANI’s suit against it.
Open AI, the developer of ChatGPT, in its response to ANI’s copyright infringement suit against it in the Delhi High Court, has contended that Indian courts do not have jurisdiction to hear litigation against it..The organisation contended that neither Open AI nor the cause of action falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Indian courts. It emphasised that ChatGPT's servers and training data are located outside India, and that the accessibility of the service within India does not automatically confer jurisdiction..The Delhi High Court had on November 19 issued summons to Open AI in a suit filed by the Asian News International (ANI) over alleged unauthorised use of its content. The case is now expected to be heard on January 28. .In its reply, the organisation noted that deletion of training data, as prayed for by ANI would be in conflict with United States federal laws mandating preservation of evidence due to ongoing litigation in that country. Open AI is engaged in a litigation with New York Times over a similar issue. Thus, according to the organisation, granting such relief would compel the defendants to act in violation of obligations under US law.OpenAI has further contended that the Delhi High Court's Commercial Division lacks jurisdiction, as the suit combines multiple causes of action, some of which fall outside the scope of "commercial disputes" as defined under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It has argued that the defamation as claimed by ANI falls outside the definition of of commercial disputes under the Act.It claimed that ANI, as a user of ChatGPT, has consented to the platform's terms of use, which include clauses mandating arbitration for disputes, thereby subjecting such disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts in San Francisco, California. It is argued that ANI must, therefore, prosecute its dispute as per the terms of use. .OpenAI counters ANI's claim that storing its works for training a Large Language Model (LLM) constitutes copyright infringement under the Indian Copyright Act. It has contended that copyright law in India protects the expression of ideas, not the underlying facts or ideas themselves. It has argued that in the digital realm, the automated use of freely available online data for purposes like training LLM focus on analysing patterns. Since it does not store the data and relay it verbatim to the user, it does not violate copyright. That is, the freely available information is used to analyse the data and interpret it or convey it in simpler terms and not copy it and not for expressive purposes. The organisation has thus argued that use of such works is protected under the "fair use" exception, stating that the transformative purposes, such as machine training, are not substantial reproduction of the original work itself. Open AI has argued that ANI’s works constitute news reports with largely factual content, which cannot be copyrighted under Indian law..It has been contended that ChatGPT works on prompts from users; if the AI is prompted to reproduce the text in a certain way, it can do so. Open AI argued that ANI has attempted to manipulate ChatGPT by feeding it specific excerpts of their own articles as prompts, trying to force the model to reproduce their content. However, it is stated that these attempts have been unsuccessful as ChatGPT generates unique responses based on the input and its learned patterns, demonstrating its ability to generate original text.OpenAI extensively addressed the limitations of ChatGPT, including the potential for "hallucinations" – instances where the AI generates incorrect or nonsensical information. It further argued that ANI's claims of defamation stemming from ChatGPT's "hallucinations" are unfounded as they do not demonstrate actual harm or damage to the news agency's reputation.The organisation has also highlighted how AI has benefited humanity as a whole and has urged the Court to reject ANI’s suit against it.
