News publishers have urged the Indian government to carve news out of the proposed "hybrid" copyright licensing framework for artificial intelligence training, arguing that journalism's public-interest role, immediacy and implications for national security require a distinct policy treatment. According to the Storyboard18 report, publishers recommended that news content be categorically excluded from any mandatory or blanket licensing regime and instead be governed by bespoke rules that preserve editorial control and the timeliness of reporting. [1]
Publishers warned that treating news like other copyrighted works such as films or music would risk algorithmic distortion of public discourse, with generative AI systems potentially privileging certain narratives or promoting sensational content at the expense of nuanced reporting. They argued that allowing unrestricted access to news could enable AI-driven summaries and feeds to substitute for original reporting, undermining subscription and advertising revenues that fund journalism. [1][2]
Rejecting compulsory blanket licensing, the publishers pressed for voluntary, market-based "willing buyer, willing seller" arrangements as the primary mechanism for news licensing. They pointed to hundreds of publicly reported voluntary deals globally as evidence that negotiated contracts, not imposed universal licences, better reflect the specialised datasets different models require and allow publishers to retain consent and control. Industry litigation involving book publishers and OpenAI in late 2024 and 2025 has underscored the commercial and legal frictions that arise when creators allege unauthorised use of copyrighted material. [1][2][5]
As an alternative to a one-size-fits-all approach, publishers proposed differentiated terms for news: premium, explicit-consent licences for recent, time-sensitive reporting and more flexible market arrangements for archival material beyond a defined horizon (for example, two years). They recommended retaining publisher control over the quantity, type and manner of news content provided to AI platforms to prevent AI systems from becoming the dominant source of news for audiences. [1]
Publishers also raised national sovereignty and foreign-direct-investment concerns, warning that mandatory licensing could allow foreign AI companies to ingest, generate and disseminate Indian news without being subject to FDI caps or editorial regulations that apply to domestic news organisations. They argued the effect would be to circumvent longstanding restrictions designed to limit foreign influence in news dissemination. These warnings sit alongside government proposals and advisory reports that have favoured mandatory or hybrid royalty-based regimes for broader copyrighted works, prompting intense debate between creators and tech industry groups. [1][7][3]
Industry positions on AI training exceptions differ sharply. Trade bodies representing AI and software companies have urged India to permit text-and-data-mining exemptions and relaxed cross-border data transfer rules to accelerate AI development, while publishers want copyright protections maintained and enforced. According to the Business Software Alliance's submissions, technology firms seek legal clarity that would ease access to large datasets; publishers counter that copyright dilution should not be used as industrial policy to subsidise AI development. [4]
On enforcement and transparency, publishers recommended robust disclosure and audit obligations modelled on international precedents, including mandatory training-dataset disclosures, metadata and crawler logs, regular independent audits and clear attribution for AI-generated outputs so users can distinguish machine-produced text from original journalism. They urged alignment with frameworks such as Canada's Online News Act and cited emerging market tools like Really Simple Licensing as practical mechanisms for publishers to express crawler and licensing terms. [1][7][6]
The debate in India sits within a wider global contest between creators seeking remuneration and control, and technology firms pressing for broad, predictable access to training data. Government committees and industry actions , from lawsuits by publisher groups to proposals for centrally administered royalty schemes , illustrate the high stakes: how India balances innovation, copyright law and democratic safeguards will shape both domestic media economics and the contours of AI development in the years ahead. [2][3][7]
📌 Reference Map:
##Reference Map:
- [1] (Storyboard18) - Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 7
- [2] (LiveMint) - Paragraph 3, Paragraph 8
- [5] (Times of India) - Paragraph 3
- [7] (Indian Express) - Paragraph 5, Paragraph 8
- [3] (TechCrunch) - Paragraph 8
- [4] (Indian Express) - Paragraph 6
- [6] (Wikipedia) - Paragraph 7
Source: Noah Wire Services