Publishers urge govt to exempt news from AI copyright regime, back voluntary licensing

News publishers have urged the government to fundamentally reconsider the proposed “hybrid” copyright licensing framework for artificial intelligence (AI) training, recommending that news content be categorically excluded from any mandatory or blanket licensing regime.

Publishers argue that journalism warrants a distinct policy treatment given its constitutional role, time-sensitive value, and implications for national security and democratic governance. Publishers cautioned that applying a one-size-fits-all copyright model to news content would undermine editorial autonomy, distort India’s information ecosystem, and weaken long-standing safeguards designed to limit foreign influence in news and current affairs.

News must be treated as a separate category, publishers say

As a foundational recommendation, publishers have called on the government to formally recognise that news content cannot be equated with other forms of copyrighted material such as films, music, or artistic works for the purposes of AI training. They emphasised that journalism exists primarily to inform the public, shape civic discourse, and serve the national interest—not to function as mass entertainment.

Publishers warned that allowing AI platforms unrestricted access to news content risks algorithmic manipulation of public discourse. Generative AI systems that summarise, rank, or contextualise news could systematically privilege certain narratives, reinforce existing biases, or promote sensational or polarising content, while marginalising nuanced reporting and diverse viewpoints.

From a policy standpoint, publishers recommended a calibrated copyright approach that preserves journalistic integrity, safeguards India’s sovereign information environment, and protects the public’s constitutional right to timely and accurate information.

Reject mandatory blanket licensing, adopt voluntary market-based models

A central recommendation from publishers is the outright rejection of the proposed mandatory blanket licensing mechanism under the hybrid model. They argued that compulsory licensing—particularly one that removes the right of publishers to refuse consent—represents a disproportionate and premature policy intervention in a nascent market.

Instead, publishers strongly recommended that voluntary licensing based on the “willing buyer, willing seller” principle be adopted as the primary policy option. They pointed out that mandatory licensing is traditionally introduced only as a last resort in cases of demonstrable market failure, for which there is no evidence in the AI licensing market.

Citing more than 100 publicly reported voluntary licensing deals between AI companies and content owners globally, publishers said market data clearly shows that both sides prefer negotiated arrangements. According to them, voluntary licensing allows for tailored agreements reflecting the specialised nature of datasets required for different AI models, while compulsory flat-rate licensing forces AI developers to pay for universal access even when only targeted content is required.

Publishers also warned that involuntary licensing risks eroding subscription revenues and advertising income by encouraging AI-generated summaries that substitute original reporting and divert traffic away from news platforms. They recommended that any licensing framework recognise AI training itself as a commercial act, warranting upfront licence fees, followed by recurring royalties to account for ongoing market substitution.

Exempt news from hybrid model, adopt differentiated licensing

Given the unique characteristics of journalism, publishers recommended that the news industry be categorically exempted from the scope of the hybrid licensing regime.

As an alternative, they proposed a differentiated, voluntary licensing framework specifically for news content. Under this approach, recently published, time-sensitive news should attract premium licensing terms and require explicit, prior consent from publishers. Historical or archival content—beyond a defined time horizon such as two years—could be licensed under flexible, market-based arrangements, again subject to publisher consent.

Publishers further recommended that they retain full control over the quantity, type, and manner of news content made available to AI platforms. This, they said, is essential to prevent AI systems from becoming the sole or dominant source of news for users, and to ensure audiences continue to access original, credible journalism.

Safeguard FDI policy and national sovereignty

Another key recommendation relates to protecting India’s foreign direct investment (FDI) policy for news and current affairs. Publishers warned that mandatory licensing would effectively allow foreign AI companies—most of which are headquartered outside India—to ingest, generate, and disseminate Indian news content without being subject to FDI caps, editorial regulations, or personnel restrictions applicable to Indian news organisations.

They argued that this would fatally undermine the intent of India’s long-standing restrictions on foreign involvement in news dissemination, enabling foreign participation through a regulatory backdoor. From a national security perspective, publishers recommended that any AI framework ensure that control over Indian news content does not shift to offshore entities capable of influencing public opinion at scale.

Do not substitute copyright law for industrial policy

Publishers also cautioned against using copyright dilution as a proxy for promoting AI innovation. They recommended that the government continue to support AI development through fiscal and infrastructural measures—such as subsidised access to computing resources—rather than compelling one private sector to subsidise another through mandatory acquisition of intellectual property.

They highlighted the inconsistency between the proposed treatment of creative content and the government’s approach to AI hardware infrastructure, where market autonomy and voluntary participation are preserved. Forcing content creators into a compulsory licensing regime, publishers said, sets a dangerous precedent and distorts market dynamics.

Strengthen transparency and accountability obligations

Recognising that any licensing regime must be enforceable, publishers recommended the adoption of a stringent transparency framework modelled on international best practices such as the EU Artificial Intelligence Act.

They called for mandatory disclosure of training datasets, maintenance of detailed metadata records, crawler activity logs, and regular independent audits of AI systems. Publishers also recommended clear attribution requirements for AI-generated outputs to preserve brand credibility and allow users to distinguish between original journalism and machine-generated content.

They argued that the proposed disclosure mechanisms in the Working Paper fall short, as they do not provide sufficient granularity for publishers to verify whether their content has been used, over what period, or in which jurisdictions.

Publishers further recommended that India’s approach be aligned with global frameworks such as Canada’s Online News Act, which mandates fair compensation to news publishers through negotiated commercial agreements, transparency requirements, and regulatory oversight.

They said such alignment would protect journalism, ensure equitable treatment of local publishers, and harmonise India’s framework with emerging international norms.

Preserve constitutional and treaty obligations

Finally, publishers recommended that any AI copyright framework remain fully consistent with the Copyright Act, 1957, and India’s international treaty obligations. They warned that a universal mandatory licence risks violating statutory rights, moral rights of authors, and the three-step test under international copyright conventions.

In conclusion, publishers urged the government to adopt a policy framework that upholds intellectual property rights, prioritises voluntary market-based licensing, enforces transparency and accountability, and ensures that AI development does not come at the cost of journalism, democratic resilience, or national interest.