Ahead of first meet, key AI copyright panel member asks to be removed
A committee examining AI's impact on India's copyright law faces dissent from a member lacking AI expertise, seeking replacement to ensure informed decisions.
A key member of the newly formed committee tasked with examining the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on India’s copyright law has said they were added without consultation and have written to the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) requesting to be replaced by someone with AI expertise.
The committee, formed by DPIIT under the ministry of commerce & industry on April 28, will analyse the legal and policy issues arising from the use of AI in the context of copyright as well as examine the adequacy of existing provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. At the end of this process the committee members will prepare and finalise a working paper with their recommendations, which will be published by DPIIT.
“I’m not an AI expert,” said the dissenting member who did not wish to be named. “I’ve written to DPIIT, but I haven’t received a response. I don’t understand why I was included in this committee in the first place.”
The idea behind setting up this committee is simple. Technology develops faster than law, and the law needs to catch up. And disruptive technologies like AI, that change the rules of the game, can’t be effectively governed by outdated laws.
Another member of the committee, who also did not wish to be named, hopes there is public consultation once the working paper is published. “The committee should take a very wide lens to look at this issue. If the government and the other members align, that’s ideal. If not, that’s still fine — one way or another, something will eventually prevail.”
The first meeting of the committee is scheduled for May 16, HT has learnt. Interestingly, this is also the day the Delhi High Court is set to hear the OpenAI vs ANI case — the first instance of an Indian news agency suing OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, for allegedly using its published content without permission to train its AI models. The case is likely to be a key talking point in the committee, as it sits squarely at the intersection of AI, copyright, and legal reform, the very issues the committee is tasked with examining.
Intellectual Property (IP) attorneys Adarsh Ramanujan and Ameet Datta, both serving as experts in the committee, are involved in the case. Ramanujan as amicus curiae and Datta as counsel for Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), one of the intervenors. The DNPA represents 21 media publishers, including HT Digital.
Over a dozen similar cases of copyright infringement have been filed against the ChatGPT-maker across the globe. In India, OpenAI is likely to argue that its use of ANI’s publicly available content to train its AI falls under “fair dealing” (“fair use” in the US), as has been argued by amicus curiae Dr. Arul George Scaria. Fair dealing in Indian copyright law allows limited use of copyrighted material without needing permission from the copyright owner, but only for certain purposes like personal use, research, criticism or review, reporting current events, teaching, and use in legal proceedings.
Whether OpenAI’s use of ANI articles qualifies as “fair dealing” is one of the things that the Indian court has to decide.
The importance of the copyright law to address concerns around AI was also recently highlighted when the Trump administration called for comments for its AI Action Plan in February. Big tech companies like Google and OpenAI, in their comments, defended the use of publicly available copyrighted content for training AI models under “fair use.” They argue that strict copyright rules could hurt innovation and the US’ global leadership in AI. OpenAI even insinuated that if American companies aren’t given unfettered access to copyrighted materials, they will lose to China in the AI race.
“If the PRC’s [People’s Republic of China] developers have unfettered access to data and American companies are left without fair use access, the race for AI is effectively over,” wrote OpenAI in its submission.
Abhishek Singh, additional secretary at the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) said in a podcast last month that the outcome of the OpenAI vs ANI case will determine a lot with regard to what changes are needed in the copyright laws.
The DPIIT-led committee is expected to submit its working paper in the coming months. Its findings could inform future amendments to India’s copyright law, as the legal and policy debates around AI continue to intensify.
The members of the committee include DPIIT additional secretary Himani Pande (also the committee chairperson), DPIIT Director (copyright, design and CIPAM) Simrat Kaur (committee convenor), MeitY scientist Anurag Kumar, NASSCOM Technical Director Chockalingam M, NASSCOM Senior Manager for Public Policy Sudipto Bannerjee, IP attorney Ameet Datta, IP attorney Adarsh Ramanujan, and professor at Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi Raman Mittal.
HT reached out to DPIIT committee’s chairperson and convenor for an official comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
