Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has rapidly transformed creative industries, producing works ranging from paintings and literature to music and computer-generated code. While AI-generated content raises exciting opportunities, it also poses serious legal questions.
Under Indian copyright law, particularly the Copyright Act, 1957, the protection of works depends on the notion of “authorship” as well as “originality.” The difficulty arises when works are autonomously created by AI systems with little or no human input.
This article examines the challenges posed by AI to copyright law in India, with a focus on the Copyright Act, 1957. It discusses statutory ambiguities, judicial trends, and comparative perspectives while analyzing landmark case laws. It concludes by emphasizing the need for legislative reform to address the balance between incentivizing human creativity and recognizing the growing role of artificial intelligence.
Introduction
The twenty-first century has witnessed a technological revolution, with AI at the forefront of innovation. In creative fields, AI has progressed from being a tool in the hands of creators to an independent generator of content. For instance, AI algorithms can compose music, draft literary pieces, or design visual art without continuous human involvement.
This phenomenon challenges the very foundation of copyright law, which is traditionally designed to protect human creativity.
In India, the governing statute is the Copyright Act, 1957, which confers exclusive rights on “authors” of “original works.” However, the law does not explicitly recognize non-human authorship. As AI technologies advance, the question arises: Can a work generated entirely by AI qualify for copyright protection under Indian law?
Use of Legal Jargon
Copyright law rests on fundamental legal concepts such as:
- Authorship: Defined under Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, it refers to the human creator of a work.
- Originality: A precondition for copyright protection, requiring independent skill, judgment, and application.
- Infringement: Unauthorized reproduction or use of copyrighted works under Section 51.
- Doctrine of Sweat of the Brow: Recognized in early Indian judgments, giving protection to works involving effort and labor.
- Doctrine of Modicum of Creativity: Adopted later, requiring minimal creativity for protection.
Applying these doctrines to AI-created works exposes a legal vacuum. If AI lacks personhood, can it be considered an “author”? If not, who owns the rights—the developer, the user, or no one?
The Proof: Data, Arguments, and Authority
Statutory Ambiguities
The Copyright Act, 1957 does not explicitly mention AI-generated works. Section 2(d)(vi) recognizes the “person who causes the work to be created” as the author in computer-generated works. This provision appears relevant but was drafted decades before modern AI.
Courts are yet to conclusively decide whether this applies to fully autonomous AI.
International Developments
Globally, jurisdictions are grappling with similar questions:
- United Kingdom: The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 provides that for computer-generated works, the author is “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
- United States: The US Copyright Office has taken a strict stance, denying registration to works lacking human authorship, as seen in Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023).
Policy Concerns
Two policy questions dominate the debate:
- Incentive to create: Copyright exists to reward human creativity. Extending it to AI might dilute this purpose.
- Economic impact: Excluding AI-generated works from copyright may discourage investment in AI-driven industries.
Thus, reform requires balancing protection for human creators with recognition of technological advancements.
Analysis
The tension between technological innovation and traditional legal frameworks becomes most evident in the case of AI-generated works.
Indian copyright law, rooted in the Copyright Act, 1957, was designed for an era when authorship and creativity were human-centric concepts. Section 2(d)(vi), while seemingly broad, reflects the context of early computer-generated works where human involvement was indispensable.
With the rise of autonomous AI, this provision reveals its limitations. Unlike conventional tools, AI systems can independently create outputs that mimic human originality, yet the absence of a human creator challenges the statutory requirement of authorship.
Judicial reliance on doctrines such as the “modicum of creativity” further complicates the matter. Courts have consistently emphasized intellectual effort, judgment, and skill, criteria that AI cannot meet in a legal sense.
If the courts continue to prioritize human-centric standards, AI outputs may remain outside the scope of protection, leading to uncertainty for developers, investors, as well as industries that increasingly depend on AI creativity.
Comparative models—like the UK’s pragmatic attribution to the “arranger” and the US’s strict rejection of non-human authorship—illustrate two extremes. India, therefore, faces the crucial task of crafting a balanced framework that fosters innovation while preserving the integrity of human creativity.
Case Laws
- Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1
- The Supreme Court adopted the “modicum of creativity” standard, holding that originality requires more than mere labor.
- This case is significant for AI, as autonomous works may lack the human creativity traditionally required.
- Tech Plus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Jyoti Janda (2014)
- The Delhi High Court emphasized that copyright subsists only in original expression, not in ideas.
- AI’s ability to replicate ideas challenges this principle, raising questions of ownership.
- R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) 4 SCC 118
- This case reinforced the idea–expression dichotomy, which becomes crucial in determining whether AI-generated outputs, often derived from datasets, constitute original expressions.
- Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023, US)
- Though not an Indian case, it highlights global trends.
- The US court refused to grant copyright to AI-generated art, affirming that authorship requires human involvement.
Together, these cases illustrate how Indian and global jurisprudence stress human authorship, leaving AI-generated works in a legal grey zone.
Conclusion
The rise of AI in creative domains is a double-edged sword for copyright law. While AI expands the boundaries of innovation, it challenges the human-centric framework of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Current provisions, including Section 2(d)(vi), are insufficient to address fully autonomous creations. Indian courts have yet to interpret the issue, but judicial reliance on originality and human authorship suggests that AI-generated works may not qualify for protection.
To resolve this uncertainty, legislative reform is essential. India could consider a hybrid approach, recognizing human involvement in training or operating AI as authorship while denying AI itself legal personhood.
Such reforms would ensure that copyright law continues to serve its purpose of incentivizing creativity while adapting to technological progress.
References
Copyright Act, 1957 (India).
Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1.
R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118.
Tech Plus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Jyoti Janda, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1983.
Thaler v. Perlmutter, Case No. 1:22-cv-01564 (D.D.C. 2023).
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 (UK).
WIPO, “Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property” (2021).
FAQs
Q1. Does the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 recognize AI as an author?
No. The Act defines authorship in human terms. Section 2(d)(vi) may apply indirectly, but it has not been judicially tested for AI-generated works.
Q2. Who owns copyright in AI-generated works?
Currently, ownership may rest with the person who caused the work to be created—such as the developer or operator—but this remains legally ambiguous.
Q3. Has any Indian court ruled directly on AI and copyright?
No Indian judgment has yet addressed AI authorship directly. Courts have, however, clarified principles of originality and authorship in related contexts.
Q4. How do other countries treat AI-generated works?
The UK attributes authorship to the person making necessary arrangements, while the US requires human authorship, rejecting purely AI-created works.
Q5. What reforms are needed in India?
A clear legislative amendment is required to define authorship in AI-related works, balancing incentives for innovation with protection of human creativity.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
