“Artificial intelligence is the science of making machines do things that would require intelligence if done by humans”.
- John McCarthy
The above quote states, Artificial Intelligence replicates human-like intelligence to perform tasks commanded by the user. This does not mean machines possess actual 'intelligence'; rather, they are programmed to mimic human abilities to complete specific tasks. However, as AI continues to redefine creativity and production, the question rises on the ‘originality’ of AI-generated work. Under the Copyright Act of 1957, originality is a fundamental requirement for copyright protection ensuring that a work must be the result of an author’s skill, judgment and effort rather than mere duplication or mechanical reproduction. This legal standard raises concerns about whether AI-generated content, which lacks human creativity and independent intellectual effort can truly be considered original. As a result the increasing presence of AI in creative fields poses a potential threat to the rights of human authors whose works risk being overshadowed or replicated without recognition. This development further narrows the distinction between human-generated and AI-generated work, resulting in the complexity of the legal framework subsequently arising questions like- can traditional copyright laws still protect the rights of ‘authors’ in an AI driven era? As this digital transformation continues to evolve, it challenges the very core principles of traditional copyright law. With AI now capable of producing original works, the definition of 'authorship' itself stands at a crossroads, demanding a revaluation of existing legal standards.
Given these challenges this article examines how AI-generated works impact copyright law in India. When a work is created by AI, the pertinent question is who is the rightful author? It also raises the question with respect to the originality of the work. Expanding on this, it also highlights the issue of copyright infringement faced by human creators due to AI.
Master AI-driven legal expertise with The Legal School’s 6-month Advanced Certification in AI Powered Legal Practice: Training Program for Lawyers & Legal Professionals, featuring expert-led training and real-world case studies. Designed for legal professionals and students, it offers practical skills, job assistance, and a prestigious certificate. Enroll now at The Legal School to lead in AI governance!
The Evolution of Copyright: Can Machine Be An Author?
O, gentle zephyr, whisper soft and true,
Doth love yet linger where the lilies grow?
Or like the morning’s fleeting golden hue,
Doth from my grasp to endless ether go?
- William Shakespeare
Some readers might mistake these lines Shakespeare's work, while others may believe it to be the work of a rising poet. Yet, this poem was neither penned by a human nor guided by creative intuition. It is entirely AI-generated—produced in seconds by a machine trained on vast datasets of literature. Neither a machine that neither feels nor dreams, yet composes poetry that echoes human emotion. This raises significant concerns regarding the potential threat to human innovation, as well as issues of copyright infringement arising from the use of datasets. Additionally, it also questions the ownership rights to this poem? There are several situations where traditional concepts of ‘originality’ or ‘creativity’ of works as requirements for copyright protection appear difficult with the computer generative process behind certain types of work.
The Berne Convention (1886) and India’s Copyright Act, 1957, recognize only human creators, excluding AI from legal protection. Global precedents, including Thaler v. USPTO (2022), confirm that AI-generated works cannot claim copyright under existing laws. The WIPO Conversation on IP and AI (2023) highlights growing concerns about originality, ownership and rights in AI-generated content. Technological advancements have historically reshaped copyright frameworks from the printing press to digital media. However, AI disrupts the very foundation of authorship. Section 2(d)(v) of the Copyright Act recognises authorship of computer-generated works, but only if a natural person "causes the work to be created." This legal framework presents a problem for AI-generated content, where human intervention may be minimal.
In 2018, an AI-generated portrait, Edmond de Belamy, was sold at auction for $432,500. No human directly painted it—so who should be credited as the author? Since, Indian Copyright Act doesn’t have existing legal framework to address such emerging issues, the question remains: will India follow the UK’s approach of granting copyright to the "person making arrangements" for AI-generated works, or will it adopt a new framework?
Legal scholars are divided on AI authorship. The Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law argues that the Copyright Act does not explicitly exclude non-human entities, making AI authorship theoretically possible. Conversely, Manupatra suggests that originality—a key requirement in copyright law—relies on human creativity, implying that AI-generated works should not qualify for protection. Until legislative reforms or judicial interpretations provide clarity uncertainty around AI and copyright will persist.
Ownership of the AI-Generated Content
At the heart of copyright law lies the principle of authorship, traditionally attributed to human creators. The Indian Copyright Act of 1957 defines an 'author' as the individual responsible for creating the work. This definition becomes ambiguous when applied to AI-generated content, as AI operates without direct human intervention. The major debate then arises about who holds the copyright to a work produced by AI—the developer, the user, or does it remain unprotected?
Section 17 of the Act further complicates matters by stating that the 'first owner' of a work is typically the author, with exceptions for works created under employment or commission. However, these provisions do not explicitly account for scenarios involving AI-generated content, leaving a legal void. In the absence of clear statutory guidance, Indian courts have yet to establish definitive precedents on this matter. In Navigators Logistics Ltd. v. Kashif Qureshi & Ors., the Delhi High Court ruled that a compilation lacking human authorship and the application of skill and judgment does not qualify for copyright protection.
The copyright protection granted to "Suryast" in India highlights the evolving legal perspectives on AI-assisted creations. Initially, the Indian Copyright Office rejected an application listing RAGHAV, the AI tool, as the sole author, citing that the author must be a natural person. However, when Ankit Sahni filed a subsequent application naming himself and RAGHAV as co-authors, the registration was approved. This suggests that while AI tools cannot independently hold copyright, works resulting from human-AI collaboration may be eligible for protection, provided there is significant human involvement in the creative process.
Liability
Civil liabilities are primarily governed by Section 51 of the Copyright Act. This section addresses copyright infringement making it clear that anyone who reproduces, distributes, performs, displays or adapts a copyrighted work without the authorization of the copyright holder can be held civilly liable. The question of who holds authorship over AI-generated software also brings up concerns about liability in cases where the work, protected under the Copyright Act, is infringed. In the matter of AI determining liability in such instances is complex, involving multiple stakeholders including developers, users and the AI entities themselves. In this case where the work does not have a defined owner then it is a difficult task to determine the liability for the infringement of the work which has been already granted protection under the copyright law. 3 Recent legal actions highlight this complexity. For instance, the Federation of Indian Publishers, representing major publishers like Bloomsbury and Penguin Random House, has filed a copyright lawsuit against OpenAI in New Delhi, alleging unauthorized use of their content for AI training.
Doctrine of Fair Use
In India, Copyright Act, 1957 governs matters related to copyright. Section 52 of the Act states about the doctrine of fair use and scenarios in which certain acts or contents cannot be considered as copyright infringement such as acts done or content created for personal or private use.
The doctrine of fair use serves as a critical balancing act between fostering innovation and protecting the rights of original creators. In the era of AI, fair use is crucial in determining whether the use of copyrighted material for training AI models constitutes infringement.
Indian courts have addressed fair use in various contexts but the application of this doctrine to AI training processes remains an area requiring further legal clarification. The four-factor test laid down by the Kerala High Court in the case of Civic Chandran v. C. Ammini Amma (1996) can be useful when determining if a use is considered fair use. Courts in fair use cases consider four factors equally: the purpose of use (commercial or transformative), the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the impact on the work’s market value. However, If AI outputs are commercial, non-transformative, or harm the original work’s market, they may not qualify. Courts must assess these factors to determine if copyright infringement claims against AI developers, like OpenAI, are valid.
Summary
AI and copyright law are tangled in a tough debate—can AI-generated content be protected like human-created works? Copyright requires originality, but AI doesn’t think or create; it just remixes patterns from existing data. This raises a big question: who owns AI-generated content? Since AI can’t be an author, should the developer, user, or company hold the rights? Things gets complex when AI-generated works infringe on existing copyrights—who takes the blame? If AI is granted copyright protection, new concerns arise, like how long it should last since AI doesn’t have a lifespan. Fair use laws also need updates to clarify when AI-generated content can be freely used. The best approach? AI shouldn’t be considered an author—ownership should go to the human behind it, whether it’s the developer or user. AI platforms should also take responsibility for preventing copyright violations. Courts specializing in AI-related copyright disputes could help resolve conflicts faster. As AI keeps evolving, copyright laws must adapt to balance human creativity with AI-driven innovation.
- Gaurisha Parashar
Related Posts:
Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law in India: FAQs
Q1. Can AI-generated content be copyrighted in India?
No, unless there is identifiable human involvement in its creation.
Q2. Who owns the rights to AI-generated work?
Typically, the user or developer who “caused” the work may claim ownership, but Indian law is unclear.
Q3. Does Indian law recognize AI as an author?
No. The Copyright Act, 1957 only recognizes human authorship.
Q4. Is training AI on copyrighted material fair use?
It depends on factors like purpose, amount used, and impact on the market.
Q5. What legal reforms are needed?
Clear authorship rules for AI-generated works, liability guidelines, and updated fair use provisions.
