India expands presence in global university rankings, but drops out of top 300
London, Sep 12: Indian universities have expanded their presence in the annual rankings of the leading global educational institutions from 49 to 56 but dropped out of the top 300 bracket in this year's 'Times Higher Education World University Rankings'.
India's top-ranked university, Bangalore's Indian Institute of Science (IISc) declined, marking the first time that India is not in top 300 since 2012 in the tally once again topped by the UK's University of Oxford.
IISc still ranks the highest for India but has dropped into the 301-350 bracket (from 251-300 cohort), due to what has been described as a significant fall in its citation impact score offsetting improvements in research environment, teaching environment and industry income.
"India has a huge amount of potential in global higher education, given its rapidly growing youth population and economy and use of English-language instruction. However, it is disappointing to see the country fall out of the top 300 of the rankings this year, with only a small number of institutions registering progress, said Ellie Bothwell, THE' rankings editor.
"The Indian government has strong ambitions to boost the global standing of its top universities and attract foreign students, academics and research collaboration. It now needs to back up these aspirations with high levels of investment or risk declining further amid increasing global competition, especially from other parts of Asia, she said on Wednesday.
Overall, 56 Indian universities feature in the table, up from 49 last year. As a result, India holds on to its place as the fifth most-represented nation in the world and the third most-represented in Asia, behind Japan and mainland China. It has eight more universities than Germany, which is sixth in the country ranking, but 25 fewer than China.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Panel recommends mandatory licensing framework for AI training on copyrighted content
New Delhi: A committee set up by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has proposed a mandatory blanket licensing system requiring AI developers to compensate copyright holders for using their work to train large language models. The panel, formed to assess how emerging AI technologies intersect with copyright law, released its working paper for public consultation on the DPIIT website. Feedback has been invited within 30 days from December 8 at the designated email address.
The committee, chaired by DPIIT Additional Secretary Himani Pande and comprising legal and technical experts, examined whether India’s existing copyright framework is adequate or requires amendments in light of rapid advances in AI, as reported by Bar&Bench. During consultations, most stakeholders from the AI industry argued for a blanket Text and Data Mining exception that would permit unrestricted training on copyrighted material. In contrast, content creators and rights holders advocated for a voluntary licensing regime.
In its paper, the committee said a broad TDM exception would weaken copyright protection and leave creators without any recourse for compensation. It noted that such a system would be unsuitable for a country with a large cultural economy and a rapidly expanding content sector. The option of allowing creators to opt out was also rejected. The panel observed that small creators would be at a disadvantage due to limited awareness and an inability to monitor whether their work had been used despite opting out.
As the committee concluded that withholding works entirely from AI training would restrict access to diverse and high-quality datasets, it recommended a hybrid model under which all lawfully accessed copyrighted content can be used for AI training to strike a balance, but with a statutory remuneration right for copyright holders.
The panel proposed that the Central government designate a central non-profit body to collect royalties from AI developers and distribute them to rights holders. Only one representative body per class of work would be allowed, either a registered copyright society or a collective management organisation. The entity, tentatively named the Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training (CRCAT), would maintain a database where creators can register their works. A government-appointed commission would determine royalty rates. A portion of the revenue generated by AI systems trained on protected content would also be distributed proportionally.
Avoiding exposing technical or sensitive information, AI developers would be expected to identify the categories, nature, and general sources of the content used in training datasets. The panel further noted that this would ensure transparency while keeping proprietary details protected.
Industry body Nasscom registered its dissent, stating that rights holders should receive explicit statutory protection against data mining. The panel members were Simrat Kaur, Anurag Kumar, advocates Ameet Datta and Adarsh Ramanujan, Raman Mittal, Chockalingam M, and Sudipto Banerjee.
_vb_97.jpeg)
