[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":30},["ShallowReactive",2],{"nr-en-delhi-high-court-urheberrecht-llm-training-ani-openai":3},{"slug":4,"title":5,"dek":6,"date":7,"time":8,"publishedAt":9,"updated":10,"updatedAt":10,"dateFmt":11,"updatedFmt":10,"kind":12,"tier":13,"author":14,"authorName":15,"topics":16,"tracker":22,"trackerLabel":23,"headlineStat":24,"image":25,"ogImage":26,"imageAlt":5,"csv":10,"minutes":27,"words":28,"html":29},"delhi-high-court-urheberrecht-llm-training-ani-openai","Delhi High Court: First Major Ruling on Copyright and AI Model Training","India's high court has ruled that OpenAI cannot escape liability by citing offshore server locations. The decision signals how major markets will handle copyright claims against AI companies globally.","2026-08-21","10:42","2026-08-21T10:42:00+02:00","","August 21, 2026","news","standard","ideal-syka","Ideal Syka",[17,18,19,20,21],"Copyright","AI regulation","LLM training","OpenAI","Jurisdiction","\u002Ftools\u002Fki-rechtsprechungsmonitor","KI-Rechtsprechungsmonitor","First major court ruling by a large market on legality of AI training data use","\u002Fnewsroom\u002Fimg\u002Fdelhi-high-court-urheberrecht-llm-training-ani-openai.webp","\u002Fog-nr\u002Fdelhi-high-court-urheberrecht-llm-training-ani-openai.en.png",2,465,"\u003Cp>The \u003Cstrong>Delhi High Court\u003C\u002Fstrong> issued a ruling on 24 July 2026 in \u003Cstrong>ANI Media v OpenAI\u003C\u002Fstrong> that marks India's first significant judicial pronouncement on the legality of using copyrighted material to train large language models. Though the main case remains pending, the court's refusal to grant interim relief already indicates how Indian courts may approach AI training practices.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Key facts\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>ANI Media\u003C\u002Fstrong> alleges \u003Cstrong>OpenAI\u003C\u002Fstrong> used its news articles without permission to train ChatGPT\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>The court rejected OpenAI's claim that Indian courts lack jurisdiction because servers are located in the US\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>The court found \u003Cstrong>Indian jurisdiction\u003C\u002Fstrong> valid because ANI is based in India and outputs are generated for Indian users\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>The case \u003Cstrong>CS(COMM)1028\u002F2024\u003C\u002Fstrong> is being heard with support from two amici curiae and six interveners\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Ch2>What the lawsuit centers on\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>ANI Media claims OpenAI used its news reports to train ChatGPT without authorization and that the model subsequently reproduces ANI's content. OpenAI argues that training constitutes lawful \u003Cstrong>"fair dealing"\u003C\u002Fstrong> under India's Copyright Act of 1957.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The court first explained in detail how large language models work: they predict sentence formation based on probability. Training data is tokenized (broken into words, phrases, and punctuation) and processed so the model learns statistical patterns. When responding to queries, the AI uses these patterns to generate responses—sometimes via \u003Cstrong>Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)\u003C\u002Fstrong>, where external information is retrieved during inference.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Jurisdiction: A precedent for global AI regulation\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The ruling's core strength lies in rejecting OpenAI's jurisdictional defense. OpenAI had argued that US server locations and San Francisco jurisdiction clauses in its terms of service precluded Indian court authority. The court disagreed:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cblockquote>\n\u003Cp>"In the present age of cloud computing and diminishing national boundaries in data storage, conventional concepts of territoriality cannot be strictly applied" – Delhi High Court, citing \u003Cstrong>Neetu Singh & Anr v Telegram FZ & Ors\u003C\u002Fstrong> (2022)\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\n\u003Cp>The judges characterized US servers as merely a \u003Cstrong>"terminal link"\u003C\u002Fstrong> in an inseparable chain: data accessed from India, processed, and outputs generated for Indian users. The rejection of strict territorial concepts was deliberate—otherwise companies could "evade Indian copyright law by shifting the terminal link to servers abroad."\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>What this means for German companies\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>This decision carries signal value far beyond India. It demonstrates that major markets will not accept that AI companies can hide behind infrastructure arguments. For German firms developing or training AI systems, the implication is clear: even if your servers are in the US or cloud-hosted, you may face liability in any jurisdiction where your models serve users or process data. The question of whether training on copyrighted material qualifies as fair use remains open—but jurisdiction is now settled.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Sources\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.worldtrademarkreview.com\u002Farticle\u002Fdelhi-high-court-addresses-copyright-and-llm-training-in-ani-v-openai\">World Trademark Review (WTR)\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cem>Editorially owned by \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fen\u002Fautor\u002Fideal-syka\">Ideal Syka\u003C\u002Fa>. Sources and method: \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fen\u002Fredaktion\">Newsroom & method\u003C\u002Fa>. Tips and corrections: \u003Ca href=\"mailto:ai@i6eal.de\">ai@i6eal.de\u003C\u002Fa>.\u003C\u002Fem>\u003C\u002Fp>\n",1787302106933]