The Digital Thread: A Blockchain Blueprint for Securing Community Heritage in the AI Era

ABSTRACT

The rapid proliferation of generative artificial intelligence poses unprecedented risks to the authenticity and integrity of intangible cultural assets. As the digital fashion world expands, questions of authenticity and IPR law arise, each with its own limitations. To mitigate vulnerabilities in traditional textiles, this paper bridges the gap in existing immutable verification protocols for protecting unique and culturally significant assets. This approach fundamentally realigns legal frameworks and closes technological loopholes. It thereby proposes a sui generis solution, enabled by a decentralised blockchain ledger architecture, to establish empowerment dynamics within the digital creative economy, transforming traditional heritage assets into verifiable digital assets that can thrive securely in an increasingly automated and AI-driven marketplace.

KEYWORDS

Fashion law, IPR, generative AI, blockchain, NDHS, and sui generis.

INTRODUCTION

The global fashion landscape is undergoing a profound paradigm shift from a creative, physical design world to seemingly different digital realms where the distinction between traditional artistry and digital synthesis becomes increasingly blurred. Modern digital platforms, metaverses, and NFT marketplaces are no longer bound by a physical garment thread or material. Instead, these feature intangible graphic apparel with virtual avatars and three-dimensional meshes. This evolution thereby precipitates a crisis of provenance, as decentralised models facilitate the rapid, unauthorised appropriation of culturally significant textile patterns and traditional design motifs without attribution, effectively stripping these assets of their historical context and communal lineage. The unethical use of generative AI contributes to such exploitation.[1].

The borderless velocity has introduced unprecedented threats to the intellectual property and rights of indigenous cultural heritage and communities. The existing legal framework in fashion law remains deeply rooted in territorial jurisdictional realms that struggle to govern the decentralised nature of digital assets. Consequently, the systemic struggle for the protection of indigenous cultural heritage exacerbates the underlying issue of cultural dilution.[2]

Generative AI systems can now autonomously scrape, adapt, and monetize ancient or traditional cultural expressions from local communities without ever physically infringing intellectual property (IP) laws. To transcend the precise gap, contending with the slow, reactive, and expensive physical world litigation process towards an agile and innovative technical sui generis framework is essential to harmonize the IPR laws with the unique requirement of cultural protection and preservation. This article demonstrates a blockchain-integrated framework that constructs an immutable, cryptographically secured and automated provenance layer to protect grassroots communities against algorithm exploitation.[3]

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK  

To navigate and distinguish the digital landscape properly, it is vital to understand the legal framework involved in fashion and IPR laws globally and domestically. As defined by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the concept of traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) encompasses the collective, evolving heritage of indigenous and grassroots communities, including traditional textile motifs, handloom patterns, and specific ethnic ornamental shapes.[4] In India domestically, the legal ecosystem designed to protect visual creativity comprises primarily three pillars: the Copyright Act 1957[5], the Designs Act 2000[6], and the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999[7]. The foundational legitimacy was built solely to serve individual commercial monopolies or to protect physical point-of-origin heritage culture. The GI indication tag protects the origin and name of the region of origin of a product, but has major limitations. It does not protect production techniques and technology, has a weak, cumbersome registration process, and lacks robust enforcement mechanisms, often failing to stop unauthorized sellers from diluting the brand.[8]

Contemporary intellectual property rights (IPR) regimes, those created under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, intend to extend safeguard provisions to emerging or newly emergent goods and processes within the global trade; however, they are increasingly susceptible to economic and cultural misappropriation.

Research from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research–National Institute of Science Communication and Policy Research (CSIR-NIScPR)[11] indicates that India’s grassroots craft clusters face high vulnerability to digital design misappropriation due to their informal, unregistered IP and artisan communal nature. For example, traditional and indigenous Indian motifs—such as Phulkari from Punjab and Varanasi handloom weaves—are heavily misappropriated. These traditional, uncodified intellectual properties are frequently exploited by global digital networks, creating a power asymmetry where marginalised artisans lack the legal resources to protect their work. These unauthorised uses usually include adaptation, distortion, or simple reproduction of cultural elements. Amplifying concerns regarding cultural dilution and hampers the authenticity of such manifestations, stemming from digital misappropriation. Furthermore, the current legal reliance on geographical indications and standard copyright fails to adequately address the evolving nature of global fashion and IPR laws.[9]

LEGAL ANALYSIS

1) Disintegration of Utilitarian Doctrine (Copyright and Design Gaps)[10]

The fundamental statutory chasm separating modern digital assets from traditional IPR protection of assets lies in the historic ‘useful article’ doctrine, codified within the intersection of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Designs Act, 2000. The traditional jurisprudence of three-dimensional garments is classified as ‘utility’. The law seeks to prevent individual monopolies over functional items; the structural configuration, cut, or 3D silhouette of an apparel item is explicitly barred from copyright protection under Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 15(2) operates as a legislative trap. In Microfibres Inc. v Girdhar & Co. (2009) and Jagdamba Impex v Tristar Products (2014)[11] , the Delhi High Court affirmed that once an original silhouette is converted into a physical product and cross-reproduced past the 50-unit threshold via industrial machinery, all copyright protection in that applied manifestation is extinguished if a three-dimensional design is not registered under the Designs Act.

The physical paradigm goes into complete conceptual collapse when forces enter the digital world. Consider a highly structured physical garment, Under Star Athletica, L.L.C. v Varsity Brands, Inc. (2017)[12]. While a surface graphic is printed onto an ‘Angarkha’, which is precisely mapped, coded, and commercialized as 3D virtual avatar assets within online spaces (such as Roblox and Fortnite), the actual 3D geometry—the asymmetric panel overlap, the tailored cut, and the physical structural drape of the jacket—cannot be separated from the functional utility of the garment itself. Therefore, the physical silhouette is legally barred from copyright protection.

Recognizing the “definitional crisis”, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) issued concept proposals to amend the Designs Act to explicitly account for non-physical, screen-based, and virtual designs (such as graphical user interfaces and digital animations). This proactive legislative step serves as systemic proof that the traditional statutory text of Section 15(2)[13]—which predicates the loss of copyright strictly on physical, industrial application—is conceptually obsolete when applied to immutable digital code assets.

2) Jurisdictional Inadequacy of the GI Framework against Algorithmic Aesthetic Laundering

While copyright and design laws fail to protect three-dimensional shapes, the current Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, designed to protect regional provenance, is incapable of mitigating the risks posed by generative AI models that scrape communal textile patterns to facilitate algorithmic data mining.[14]

[15]The statute of Geographical Indication currently relies on a ‘name-based’ and ‘source-identified’ mechanism. The presumption of infringement lies upon the misuse of the registered geographical trademark (such as ‘Banarasi’ or ‘Chanderi’) to sell counterfeit materials by an unauthorized third party. This entire framework is rendered legally obsolete by the technological mechanism of generative text-to-image artificial intelligence models like Midjourney.[16]. These machine-learning systems do not operate via traditional mechanisms of trademark misrepresentation or geographic fraud. Instead, they deploy automated web-scraping protocols to extract mass, high-resolution visual datasets of registered, geographically indicated (GI) artisanal crafts directly from digital cultural archives, bypassing the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of the originating indigenous or local communities. When a digital platform uses these trained AI models to generate apparel for virtual marketplaces, the system outputs a flawless synthetic replica that completely clones the visual heritage of the artisans, committing absolutely zero violations under the GI Act, 1999. The landmark RAGHAV AI case demonstrates a regulatory vacuum, where initial copyright recognition was later withdrawn due to the unclear legal standing of AI co-authorship.[17]

3) Cultural appropriation and failure of proprietary IPR mechanics.[18]

The intersection of generative AI technologies and heritage fashion exposes a profound systematic vulnerability regarding “cultural appropriation” – the unauthorized commercial misappropriation of Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) without economic reciprocity, consent, or communal attribution. In Prof. Adv Ganesh S. Hingmire and Ors v Prada Group and Ors,[19] the Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) due to a lack of locus standi that accused the luxury brand PRADA of cultural appropriation and infringement by copying the traditional design in the Milan Fashion showcase. Recently, Ralph Lauren displayed Indian authentic Jhumkas while ignoring its cultural heritage, which was pure whitewashing and appropriation.[20] This showcases the limitation of protection under the GI Act 1999, which only recognizes the name and regionality, ignoring the underlying design of the product, making it difficult for localized artisan groups to tackle global copyright or GI violations without substantial corporate backing. The visual heritage is stolen, but the law is completely paralyzed due to a lack of geographic nexus or trademark misuse.

By viewing cultural heritage solely through individual authorship and physical utility, current IPR frameworks actively enable corporate exploitation. Virtual avatars and generative AI models can easily strip indigenous designs of their regional context, exploiting the gaps left by traditional copyrights and name-based GI laws. Until our legal structures evolve from protecting corporate monopolies to defending collective cultural sovereignty, the law will remain ineffective as centuries of artisanal identity are algorithmically stolen on the global stage.

CASE LAW DISCUSSION

To analytically understand how Indian and international courts have handled these issues, we must look forward to understanding these vital judicial precedents.

1) Microfibres Inc. v Girdhar & Co. (2009) Delhi High Court [21]

• RULE – The Delhi High Court established that under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, an original artistic work applied to a commercial article loses copyright protection if it is reproduced more than 50 times via an industrial process without being registered under the Designs Act, 2000.

• DIGITAL PARADOX- The 50-copy physical threshold faces absolute conceptual collapse within virtual ecosystems. When a single piece of 3D mesh code represents an indigenous textile motif and is catalogued under a visual marketplace as a digital asset, it can be reproduced numerous times instantly, facing no substantial legal challenge due to the absence of a legal procedure requirement under Section 15(2). Allowing mass replication of digital data mining across virtual realms.

2) Jagdamba Impex v Tristar Products (2014), Delhi High Court [22]

• Rule – The court reinforced that industrial drawings lose copyright immunity once a three-dimensional commercial application takes place, holding that creators cannot circumvent the statutory text of the Designs Act by actively claiming copyright over a functional article.

• Issue – This rule solidifies the ‘useful article doctrine’, binding 3D shapes to physical functionality. When transformed into visual 3D avatar skins (Roblox, Fortnite) in the metaverse, the physical parameters of an indigenous garment’s structure are stripped off due to a lack of copyrightable utility.

3) Andersen et al. v Stability AI Ltd et al. (N.D. Cal.)[23]

• Rule – The U.S. District Court sustained claims for direct copyright infringement, ruling that the unauthorized scraping, ingestion, and compressed algorithmic storage of copyrighted images to train generative AI (like Midjourney) models constitutes a plausible cause of action.

• Paradox – While Anderson addresses data theft, it exposes a critical loophole regarding traditional apparel heritage. The copyright law protects specific executions and not artistic styles or communal values.

• The court discovery process exposed that text-to-image tools like Midjourney were trained by scraping massive, unconsented internet datasets (such as Chanderi or Banarasi) from cultural handloom weavers, containing millions of digital images that are being mined. For India’s artisan communities, Andersen serves as a stark warning. Their unregistered, publicly uploaded images of traditional crafts are currently being actively mined to train global corporate AI models without their consent, attribution, or financial compensation.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS –

Where statutory gaps meet judicial precedents, there is a stark gap: traditional IPR laws are fundamentally ill-equipped to deal digital cloning and AI and machine-learning ingestion of Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs). The core of traditional IP law is protecting individual, corporate, and time-limited innovation. Cultural heritage, in contrast, is collective, eternal, and historically fluid. This mismatch has led to a regulatory vacuum whereby generative AI models scrape and commercialize digitized textile matrices, artisanal designs or regional handicrafts without authorization or fair compensation.

Current IP statutes protect individual or corporate owners for a limited time, covering only the tangible expression of an idea. Conversely, traditional cultural expressions belong to an entire community, are preserved perpetually across generations, and reside in the underlying cultural aesthetic rather than a single fixed product. This creates an inherent structural mismatch.

This structural failure exacerbates emerging global judicial trends. In judgments concerning generative AI and data ingestion, courts have leaned heavily toward examining “transformative use” under the fair-use doctrine[24]. Furthermore, in standard policy situations, the opt-out provision in global generative AI circles disproportionately undermines vulnerable artisans, who rarely possess the technical capability to audit training datasets or have the financial capability to rely upon heavy litigation processes against global platforms.

The current statutory status quo is consequently highly regressive, as it inadvertently allows the unchecked extraction of public cultural assets, enriching technology developers while leaving the source communities economically marginalized.

To resolve this imbalance and bridge the gap, as conferred in the WIPO International Conference on Intellectual Property and Cultural Heritage in the Digital World[25] The legal framework must pivot from post facto litigation to a progressive, sui generis, evolving blockchain mechanism. The law should recognize automated, programmatic legal architectures such as sanctioned cryptographic registries generating immutable, globally verifiable timestamps. Enforce self-executing ‘smart contracts’ as a valid mechanism to enforce mandatory collective benefit sharing securely and automate micro-royalties directly for the cultural artisans. To close this enforcement gap, the framework must employ a ‘Sovereign legal Oracle’ to act as a data bridge between public legal registries and external digital environments.[26] This mechanism, in line with the policy parameters of the DPIIT Working Paper on Generative AI, will be able to continuously audit digital marketplaces and training datasets for unauthorized ingestion of protected cultural designs. It provides relief to grassroots artisan communities from the financial and logistical burden of policing by automating the detection of intellectual property infringements.[27]

Conclusion

In a nutshell, this analysis has demonstrated that the existing regulatory framework requires critical modernisation with protection of marginalised communities to effectively address the rapid evolution of autonomous technologies. The findings indicate that current statutes fail to adequately account for decentralised liability, leaving significant enforcement gaps that undermine consumer protection and market stability.

By analysing the ambiguities against existing precedents, the article has reinforced the inconsistencies, moving beyond the isolated domestic framework towards a transnational approach. By restructuring it with the benefit-sharing mechanisms of WIPO. Furthermore, technology governance is shifting towards harmonised data-sharing mandates and adaptive regulations. To strengthen the legal landscape, future reforms must capitalise on this trajectory by aligning with the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (May 2024). Representing a ‘‘digital divide” architecture affecting artisan access, it would bridge the gap between technological advancement and legal accountability, ensuring that the framework remains resilient, predictable, and capable of protecting foundations and culture simultaneously within the global fashion industry in an increasingly automated society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. “Curbing Cultural Appropriation in the Fashion Industry with Intellectual Property” <https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/curbing-cultural-appropriation-in-the-fashion-industry-with-intellectual-property-40880>. ↑

2. “LAW ON THE PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES” (2003) law <https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/acc_e/hrv_e/wtacchrv57_leg_6.pdf> ↑

3. “STAR ATHLETICA, L.L.C. v. VARSITY BRANDS, INC., ET AL.” (Supreme Court, 2017) <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-866_0971.pdf> ↑

4. “The Metaverse, NFTs and IP Rights: To Regulate or Not to Regulate” <https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/the-metaverse-nfts-and-ip-rights-to-regulate-or-not-to-regulate-42603>

5. 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1647 ↑

6. Anand S and Mehrotra N, “Appraisal of Misappropriation of Traditional Cultural Expressions: A SMART Model Approach” (2026) 31 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights <https://doi.org/10.56042/jipr.v31i2.16635> ↑

7. Anand S and Mehrotra N, “Appraisal of Misappropriation of Traditional Cultural Expressions: A SMART Model Approach” (2026) 31 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights <https://doi.org/10.56042/jipr.v31i2.16635> ↑

8. Copyright Act 1957, s 13 ↑

9. Copyright Act 1957, s 15(2) ↑

10. Designs Act 2000, s 2(d) ↑

11. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, s 7 ↑

12. Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Dayal A and Pandey A, “Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade Proposes Amendments to Designs Act to Align with Global Best Practices” (2026) press-release <https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2219951&reg=3&lang=1> ↑

13. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, “National Blockchain Framework” (2025) <https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2051934> ↑

14. Purnashri Das, ‘Legal Mechanism for Protecting Fashion Designs: Comparative Study of Copyright and Design Law in USA, European Union and India’ [2024] 3(2) NLUA Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 109, 140. ↑

15. Salar N and Murthy S, “The Exploited yet Legally Underappreciated Apparel Domain of Indigenous Communities: Tracing WIPO’s Efforts and Ongoing Challenges” (2023) 26 The Journal of World Intellectual Property 312 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12266> ↑

16. Will Bedingfield, “The Generative AI Battle Has a Fundamental Flaw” WIRED (July 25, 2023) <https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-copyright-law/?verso=true>. ↑

17. World Intellectual Property Organisation, “Developing a National Strategy on Intellectual Property, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions” ↑

18. “Curbing Cultural Appropriation in the Fashion Industry with Intellectual Property” <https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/curbing-cultural-appropriation-in-the-fashion-industry-with-intellectual-property-40880>. ↑

19. WIPO Copyright Treaty (Berne Convention, 20 December,1996) ↑

20. Prof Adv Ganesh S Hingmire v PRADA Group [2025] BHC-AS 29310-DB ↑

21. The Editor and others, “Ralph Lauren ‘Jhumka’ Earrings Spark Viral Cultural Appropriation Debate after Paris Fashion Week Show” (2026) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/etimes/trending/ralph-lauren-jhumka-earrings-spark-viral-cultural-appropriation-debate-after-paris-fashion-week-show/articleshowprint/129257736.cms> ↑

22. Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co (2009) 160 DLT 70 (Del) ↑

23. M/s Jagdamba Impex v Tristar Products (2014) FAO 128 & 129 of 2014 (Del HC) ↑

24. Andersen v Stability AI Ltd (ND Cal, 13 January 2023) ↑

25. Debajyoti Chakravarty, “AI, Copyright, and the Future of Creativity” (org, May 18, 2026) <https://www.orfonline.org/research/ai-copyright-and-the-future-of-creativity> ↑

26. Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Working Paper on Generative AI and Copyright (Ministry of Commerce & Industry, 2025) dpiit.gov.in accessed 8 June 2026. ↑

[1] “The Metaverse, NFTs and IP Rights: To Regulate or Not to Regulate<https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/the-metaverse-nfts?” -and-ip-rights-to-regulate-or-not-to-regulate-42603>

[2] Curbing Cultural Appropriation in the Fashion Industry with Intellectual Property” <https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/curbing-cultural-appropriation-in-the-fashion-industry-with-intellectual-property-40880>

[3] Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, “National Blockchain Framework” (2025) <https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2051934>

[4] World Intellectual Property Organization, “Developing a National Strategy on Intellectual Property, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions”

[5] Copyright Act 1957, s 13

[6] Designs Act 2000, s 2(d)

[7] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, s 7

[10] Purnashri Das, ‘Legal Mechanism for Protecting Fashion Designs: Comparative Study of Copyright and Design Law in USA, European Union and India’ [2024] 3(2) NLUA Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 109, 140.

[11] 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1647

[12] “STAR ATHLETICA, L.L.C. v. VARSITY BRANDS, INC., ET AL.” (Supreme Court, 2017) <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-866_0971.pdf>

[13] Copyright Act 1957, s 15(2)

[14] Salar N and Murthy S, “The Exploited yet Legally Underappreciated Apparel Domain of Indigenous Communities: Tracing WIPO’s Efforts and Ongoing Challenges” (2023) 26 The Journal of World Intellectual Property 312 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12266>

[15] “LAW ON THE PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES” (2003) law <https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/acc_e/hrv_e/wtacchrv57_leg_6.pdf>

[16] Will Bedingfield, “The Generative AI Battle Has a Fundamental Flaw” WIRED (July 25, 2023) <https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-copyright-law/?verso=true>.

[17] Anand S and Mehrotra N, “Appraisal of Misappropriation of Traditional Cultural Expressions: A SMART Model Approach” (2026) 31 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights <https://doi.org/10.56042/jipr.v31i2.16635>

[18] “Curbing Cultural Appropriation in the Fashion Industry with Intellectual Property” <https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/curbing-cultural-appropriation-in-the-fashion-industry-with-intellectual-property-40880>.

[19] Prof Adv Ganesh S Hingmire v PRADA Group [2025] BHC-AS 29310-DB

[20] TheEditteur and others, “Ralph Lauren ‘Jhumka’ Earrings Spark Viral Cultural Appropriation Debate after Paris Fashion Week Show” (2026) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/etimes/trending/ralph-lauren-jhumka-earrings-spark-viral-cultural-appropriation-debate-after-paris-fashion-week-show/articleshowprint/129257736.cms>

[21] Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co (2009) 160 DLT 70 (Del)

[22] M/s Jagdamba Impex v Tristar Products (2014) FAO 128 & 129 of 2014 (Del HC)

[23] Andersen v Stability AI Ltd (ND Cal, 13 January 2023)

[24] Debajyoti Chakravarty, “AI, Copyright, and the Future of Creativity” (orfonline.org, May 18, 2026) <https://www.orfonline.org/research/ai-copyright-and-the-future-of-creativity>

[26] Megha Ravindranath, ‘Legality of Blockchain and Smart Contracts in India’ (2024) 6(2) International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR) 1, 1 (p. 1)

[27] Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Working Paper on Generative AI and Copyright (Ministry of Commerce & Industry, 2025) dpiit.gov.in accessed 8 June 2026.