News publishers in India urge the government to exclude journalism from the proposed AI training copyright framework, citing threats to editorial control, national security, and revenue, advocating for market-based licensing instead of mandatory regimes.
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]
đź“Ś 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
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative is recent, published on January 13, 2026. Similar discussions have occurred in the past, notably in June 2025, when the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) welcomed the Indian government’s initiative to review the intersection of AI and copyright law. ([business-standard.com](https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/dnpa-calls-for-copyright-protection-in-ai-training-backs-govt-initiative-125062100967_1.html?utm_source=openai)) However, the current report provides updated perspectives and recommendations, indicating a high freshness score.
Quotes check
Score:
9
Notes:
The report includes direct quotes from publishers urging the government to exempt news from the AI copyright regime and advocating for voluntary licensing. These quotes appear to be original to this report, with no exact matches found in earlier material, suggesting potential exclusivity.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The narrative originates from Storyboard18, a media outlet that appears to be a single-source platform. While it provides detailed information, the lack of multiple reputable sources raises concerns about the reliability of the information presented.
Plausability check
Score:
7
Notes:
The claims made in the report align with ongoing debates in India regarding AI and copyright laws. However, the absence of corroboration from other reputable outlets makes the claims less verifiable, warranting caution.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative presents recent developments regarding publishers urging the Indian government to exempt news from the AI copyright regime and support voluntary licensing. While the content is recent and accessible, it originates from a single-source platform, and the claims lack corroboration from other reputable outlets, raising concerns about reliability and verifiability. Further verification from multiple reputable sources is recommended before publishing.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
