Recently, OPENAI's ruling on the Delhi Higher Court of India on deleting ChatGPT training data made a debate, which attracted attention. The case originated from the lawsuit of Ani, an Indian news institution, and ANI accused OpenAI training CHATGPT without authorization and requested to delete relevant data. This has triggered a widespread discussion on the use of copyright of artificial intelligence companies and the jurisdiction of data, and also highlights the increasingly tense relationship between artificial intelligence development and legal supervision worldwide.
Recently, the US artificial intelligence company OPENAI's ruling on the High Court of India has proposed a defense, arguing that the court has no right to require it to delete the training data of ChatGPT. This case stems from the lawsuit filed by Indian news institution ANI in November last year, claiming that OpenAI has not authorized the use of its published content to train ChatGPT. Ani requires to delete its content from the training data set of the model and accuse Openai infringement of copyright.
In a 86 -page document submitted to the Delhi High Court on January 10, OpenAI stated that according to US law, training data must be retained when lawsuits are undergoing lawsuits. Therefore, the deletion of data from India conflicts with its legal liability. Openai emphasized that because the company has no entity or server in India, the court does not have jurisdiction over its operation. OpenAI pointed out in the file: "The server that stores ChatGPT training data is located outside India."
Although OpenAI said that the content of ANI will stop in the future, ANI is still worried that materials that have been integrated into the ChatGPT data set will continue to cause unauthorized copying problems. Ani also concerned about OpenAI's business agreement with international media institutions, arguing that this may lead to unfair competition. Ani said that ChatGPT had almost replicated the content of the article when he asked questions.
The trial of the case was held on January 28. Ani is a part of the institution owned by Reuters, and Reuters clearly states that it does not involve ANI's business decision -making or legal dispute. This lawsuit is part of the wider challenge of the abuse of copyright materials training models for artificial intelligence companies. In the United States, OpenAI is also defending similar allegations, including a high -profile case mentioned by the New York Times. OpenAI always adheres to its artificial intelligence system that depends on public available data and meets reasonable protection clauses.
Points:
Openai claims that the Delhi High Court has no right to demand deletion of its training data because its server is overseas.
ANI accused OpenAI unauthorized use of its content, requiring deletion of relevant data and accusing the infringement.
The court was approved on January 28th, and OpenAI also faced similar copyright challenges in the United States.
The final judgment of this case will have a profound impact on the use of artificial intelligence companies and copyright issues, and may set precedents for similar disputes in the future. The trial results of the case are worthy of continuous attention.