ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND FUTURE
OF COPYRIGHT LAW IN INDIA
This Article is written by -Supriya Chandra, 1st year (2nd semester) from SS Khanna Girls’ Degree College, UoA, Prayagraj
ABSTRACT
The rapid evolution of artificial
intelligence (AI) has provoked unprecedented challenges in the realm of
intellectual property, particularly copyright law. As machines now compose
music, write poetry, and generate artworks and literature, the question arises:
who owns the copyright in such AI-generated content? This article explores the
current Indian legal framework governing copyright, its compatibility with
AI-generated works, and the evolving international discourse. It seeks to
analyze whether Indian copyright law is equipped to handle the complexities
posed by non-human creators and how reforms can be implemented to balance
innovation with legal protection. The scope of this article includes statutory
analysis, case law review, international models, doctrinal interpretations, and
proposed legal reforms aimed at harmonizing copyright principles with
technological advancements.
KEYWORDS
Artificial Intelligence (AI), Copyright
Law, Human Authorship, Originality, Jurisprudence, Indian Copyright Act, Ownership,
Liability, Technological Innovation.
INTRODUCTION
The 21st century has witnessed the
profound integration of artificial intelligence into creative and economic
sectors. From self-generating news articles to AI-composed symphonies, the once
rigid boundary between human and machine creativity is fading. This
transformation fundamentally disrupts conventional understandings of copyright,
which are historically anchored in the idea of a human author. In India, the
Copyright Act, 1957, was designed with a human-centric approach, and the
jurisprudence continues to reflect this anthropocentric bias.
The importance of this subject lies in
the transformative role AI plays in content creation and the pressing need for
a legal framework that accommodates such changes. As AI continues to innovate
in the domains of art, literature, journalism, and even law, a corresponding
evolution of copyright law is imperative.
This article outlines the Indian legal
position on authorship and originality, examines global trends, explores the
complexities of AI-generated works, critically evaluates the existing framework
and proposes legal reforms aimed at harmonizing the rights of content creators,
technology innovators, and the wider public.
THE INDIAN COPYRIGHT FRAMEWORK AND
ITS HUMAN- CENTRIC BASIS
Copyright protection in India is
regulated by the provisions of the Copyright Act enacted in 1957. Section 13 of
the Act provides protection to original literary, dramatic, musical, and
artistic works, cinematographic films, and sound recordings. Section 2(d)
defines an “author” based on the type of workfor literary and dramatic works,
the author is “the person who creates the work.”[1]
This definition clearly presumes a human
being. Further, originality, a foundational requirement for protection under
Section 13, is evaluated through the lens of the “skill, labor and judgment” of
a human author as interpreted in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, where the
Supreme Court emphasized the need for minimal creativity.[2]
This test, though more liberal than the
American “modicum of creativity” doctrine, still necessitates a degree of human
effort and creativity. As a result, works created entirely by AI may not meet
the statutory threshold for originality under current Indian law.
There is currently no statutory
recognition of AI as an author or inventor. This framework makes it difficult
to assign copyright to outputs solely created by AI without human intervention.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND
COPYRIGHTABLE WORK
AI systems like Gemini, ChatGPT, or
Google's DeepMind can now generate texts, images, videos, and music that are
indistinguishable from human-made creations. The legal quandary revolves around
whether such content qualifies for copyright and who can be said to own it.In most
cases, AI systems function autonomously, based on training datasets and machine
learning algorithms, not directed by a human in the traditional sense. This
raises two fundamental questions:
1. Can the work be consideredoriginal?
2. If so, who is the author?
The dilemma is amplified when no single
human directly contributes to the output beyond creating or training the AI
model. The Indian Copyright Act, with its anthropocentric definitions, does not
offer a viable solution to such dilemmas.
Further complications arise in scenarios
where the training data used by the AI is itself protected by copyright. In
such cases, AI-generated content might inadvertently infringe on the rights of
existing authors, creating legal liability for developers or users. The law
currently lacks provisions addressing such derivative or transformative use by
AI.
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON AI
AND COPYRIGHT
1. United Kingdom:
The UK recognizes computer-generated
works under Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988,
designating the author as the person who makes the necessary arrangements for
the creation of the work. This provision allows for indirect recognition of
AI-generated content.[3]
2.United States:
The U.S. Copyright Office requires human
authorship for protection, as per its Compendium (Third Edition). In Stephen
Thaler v. Perlmutter (2022)[4],
the court affirmed that AI cannot hold authorship under U.S. copyright law.
3. European Union:
The 2019 Copyright Directive mandates
human intellectual input for copyright eligibility. Though AI authorship is not
explicitly addressed, the European Parliament has urged clarity on rights in
AI-generated content.
4. Japan and China:
Japan permits the use of AI-generated
content with minimal restrictions unless it closely copies protected works.
Conversely, China is moving toward formal legal recognition of AI-generated
outputs, provided there is some human involvement or creative input.
These varied global approaches highlight
the urgency for India to adopt a balanced and adaptable legal framework that
acknowledges AI-driven creativity while ensuring clarity and fairness in
authorship and rights assignment.
INDIAN JURISPRUDENCE ON NON-HUMAN AUTHORSHIP
India has not yet dealt with a case
directly addressing AI-generated works. In the case of Najma Heptulla v.
Orient Longman Ltd. emphasized that authorship and originality depend on
human creativity.[5]
Similarly, in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, the Supreme Court highlighted
that a work must originate from human skill, which indirectly rules out AI
authorship.[6]Without
judicial guidance or legislative reform, the legal ambiguity surrounding
AI-generated works in India remains unresolved.
Interestingly, Indian courts have
recognized non-human entities in other areas of law. For instance, in Shiromani
Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee v. Som Nath Dass, the Supreme Court
acknowledged juristic personalities beyond human beings, such as idols and
trusts.[7]This
precedent could be interpreted to support, with caution, the idea of
recognizing AI systems as legal entities, though such a shift would require a
radical legislative and philosophical departure.
OWNERSHIP AND LIABILITYOF AI-GENERATED
CONTENT
Even if authorship is attributed to a
human, complications arise in assigning ownership and liability. Should it
belong to:
·
The developer of the
AI?
·
The user who prompted
the AI?
·
The entity that owns
the AI infrastructure?
The default answer under current law
would point to the human who caused the creation, possibly the programmer or
the end-userbut this remains legally untested in Indian courts.Furthermore,
liability in case of infringement or malicious content generated by AI is
equally complex. Since AI lacks legal personhood, it cannot be sued, raising
concerns about enforcement and remedies.
The lack of clear accountability for
infringing content, especially deepfakes, plagiarized outputs, or content that
violates personality rights, presents a significant regulatory challenge.
AI-generated content, once released into digital ecosystems, spreads rapidly
and makes tracking sources difficult. The lack of transparency in legal
frameworks puts the rights of creators and the interests of users at
significant risk.
ARGUMENTSAND CRITICISMS
The question of whether AI-generated
works deserve copyright safeguards continues to divide opinions, sparking
intense disagreement across legal and creative circles. Proponents argue that
recognizing such works under copyright law is essential to stimulate innovation
and creativity in the field of artificial intelligence. As significant
investment, effort, and intellectual skill go into developing AI models capable
of autonomous creation, developers and stakeholders should be entitled to legal
rights over the outputs. It is further argued that assigning copyright to the
person who made the necessary arrangements—such as training the algorithm,
curating data, or designing prompts—aligns with the broader purpose of
copyright law, which is to incentivize creativity and investment in artistic
and literary expression. This approach mirrors the legal stance of
jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, which attempt to bridge the gap between
human involvement and machine autonomy.
However, strong criticisms also emerge
from both legal and philosophical grounds. One major critique is that copyright
law has always been grounded in the notion of human creativity, personal
expression, and moral justification. Granting legal recognition to works
generated by machines, which lack consciousness, intent, or a sense of
authorship, would dilute these core principles. Opponents caution that
expanding authorship to include AI might undermine the very foundation of
intellectual property law, especially the concept of moral rights, which
presupposes a link between the creator and their creation. Another concern
relates to the practical implications of granting copyrights to AI-generated
works, such as the potential for excessive monopolization of content. Since AI
can generate vast quantities of creative material in a short period,
recognizing these works under copyright may flood the market, limit access to
creative expression, and tilt the balance of intellectual property in favor of
large tech corporations. Additionally, critics argue that this shift might
sideline human creators and reduce the scope for genuine human originality in
the digital era.
PROPOSED REFORMS IN INDIAN LAW
To address the emerging challenges,
India must undertake both legislative and judicial reforms:
1. Statutory Recognition of
AI-Generated Works
A new provision, akin to Section 9(3) of
the UK Act, can be introduced, attributing authorship to the person who makes
the necessary arrangements for AI-generated content. This would provide clarity
and encourage responsible innovation.
2. Defining “Originality” in AI
Context
Indian courts must evolve the
interpretation of “originality” to accommodate AI-generated works, perhaps
focusing on the creativity involved in designing the AI or curating the inputs
rather than the final output itself.
3. Clarifying Ownership
The Copyright Act should define
ownership rights in AI-created works, distinguishing between the developer,
trainer, and user of the AI system. This will ensure that disputes are
minimized and that the value generated by AI is justly attributed.
4. Creating a Sui Generis Right
India may consider a separate,
limited-term intellectual property right for AI-generated works to strike a
balance between protection and public access. This right could be non-exclusive
or subject to compulsory licensing.
5. Liability Provisions
Legislative clarity is needed to
determine liability for infringing or offensive AI-generated content. Civil and
criminal laws should be updated to reflect this, possibly through a shared
liability model between users and developers.
6. Institutional Framework and
Public Discourse
The government could establish a working
group comprising legal experts, technologists, and policymakers to periodically
review the interaction between AI and IP law. Public consultations should also
be encouraged to develop a consensus-based reform.
CONCLUSION
The emergence of artificial intelligence
is reshaping the contours of India’s copyright framework, posing unprecedented
legal and regulatory challenges. As AI technologies begin to produce works of
creative value independently, Indian law must move beyond its current
human-centric model to embrace technological realities. The Copyright Act,
1957, in its current form, does not adequately address issues of authorship,
originality, and ownership in AI-generated content.
India can take cues from jurisdictions
like the UK while also tailoring solutions to its unique technological and
legal landscape. A blend of legislative amendments and judicial innovations is
necessary to prevent legal uncertainty and foster innovation. Ultimately, the
goal should be to ensure that copyright law remains relevant, equitable, and
adaptable in the age of artificial intelligence. Only by doing so can we
safeguard the rights of both human creators and the innovators driving AI
development, while maintaining the delicate balance between access, control,
and creativity.
REFERENCES
1. https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348418/legal-implications-of-ai-created-works-in-india(Last visited at June 19, 2025).
2. https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/copyright-law-artificial-intelligence.html(Last visited at June 19, 2025).
3. https://bpasjournals.com/library-science/index.php/journal/article/view/465(Last visited at June 18, 2025).
4. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/legal/article-18157-artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-ownership-in-india-legal-challenges-and-future-directions.html#:~:text=This%20article%20examines%20the%20legal%20and%20policy%20issues,owner-the%20AI%20developer%2C%20user%2C%20or%20the%20machine%20itself.
(Last visited at June 18, 2025).
[1]The Copyright Act,
1957 (India).
[2] Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1.
[3] Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK), § 9(3).
[4]Stephen Thaler v.
Perlmutter (DDC 2022).
[5]Najma Heptulla v.
Orient Longman Ltd. , AIR 1989 Del 63.
[6]R.G. Anand v. Delux
Films, (1978) 4 SCC 146.
[7]Shiromani Gurudwara
Prabandhak Committee v. Som Nath Dass, (2000).
Hastags:-
#ArtificialIntelligence
#CopyrightLaw
#AIlawIndia
#FutureOfIPR
#AIandLaw
#CopyrightReform
#IntellectualProperty
#TechAndLaw
#DigitalRights
#InnovationVsOwnership
Post a Comment