Authored By: VARSHINI V S
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, COIMBATORE (TNDALU)
- ABSTRACT:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has introduced significant challenges to India’s copyright framework, which traditionally recognizes human authorship. The Copyright Act of 1957 does not explicitly address works created by AI, resulting in legal ambiguities regarding ownership and protection. In response, the Indian government established an expert panel in April 2025 to review and potentially reform the Act to accommodate AI-generated content better. (reuters.com) This initiative aims to balance the interests of creators, developers, and the public in the evolving digital landscape.
- INTRODUCTION:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has evolved from a futuristic concept to an everyday reality, producing paintings, music, literature, and software code that rival human creations. Tools like ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney have made generative AI accessible to all, triggering complex legal questions about intellectual property (IP) rights, especially in copyright law. In India, the conversation is still emerging, but global trends and domestic legal principles, particularly under the Copyright Act, 1957, are shaping the discourse. In India, AI is poised to add nearly US$957 billion to GDP by 2035, transforming creative industries, research, and business operations. However, AI’s rise brings profound copyright challenges ranging from the authorship of AI-generated works to the legality of using copyrighted material for AI training. Indian copyright law, rooted in the Copyright Act, 1957, was designed in a pre AI era. While the law rewards human creativity, it has yet to fully account for autonomous machine outputs. This legal lag creates uncertainty for developers, artists, and policymakers. The allocation of authorship and ownership of potentially copyrightable works generated by AI is a challenging task. Although many subjects are involved in the AI projects, the real creator is always AI. Therefore, this article discusses that unless AI is provided with legal personality, no authorship of works generated by AI can be attributed. What are the consequences of this for copyright? The article finds that the current copyright system needs to be revised in order to prepare for the AI-driven era, and so some guidelines are suggested1.
In contrast with technological development, the law has not kept up with technological progress. “Policy and law are always a step behind innovation, and that is almost by design.”2 So far, copyright law does not provide any clear answer or even guidelines on the question of who should be deemed as an author and owner of works generated by AI. This situation is dangerous for the AI industry. Due to lack of legal certainty, companies and natural persons can be demotivated to invest monetary and creative efforts into the development of AI systems. This, in turn, could disrupt the progress in this area of AI’s application.
- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND COPYRIGHT:
There has been an extensive use of computer programs in the generation of copyrighted works since the 1970s. The computer-generated works did not create many problems concerning copyright ownership. The reason was that computer programs were considered mere tools to support the activities, which were creative in nature, and human intervention was required for the production of the work. These programs were just like stationery items, which required human beings to use them to create works. Things have completely changed now. With AI in place, the computer programs are no longer tools alone and have the potential to generate works independently by taking their own decisions.
3.1. Copyrightability under Indian Law3:
According to section 13 of The Copyright Act, 19574, works in which copyright subsists: (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and the other provisions of this Act, copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of works, that is to say, — (a) original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works;
(b) cinematograph films; and
(c) sound recording.
(2) Copyright shall not subsist in any work specified in sub-section (1), other than a work to which the provisions of section 40 or section 41 apply, unless —
(i) In the case of a published work, the work is first published in India, or where the work is first published outside India, the author is at the date of such publication, or in a case where the author was dead at that date, was at the time of his death, a citizen of India; (ii) In the case of an unpublished work other than a work of architecture, the author is, at the date of the making of the work, a citizen of India or domiciled in India; and (iii) In the case of work of architecture, the work is located in India.
(3) Copyright shall not subsist—
(a) In any cinematograph film, if a substantial part of the film is an infringement of the copyright in any other work;
(b) In any sound recording made in respect of a literary, dramatic, or musical work, if in making the sound recording, copyright in such work has been infringed. (4) The copyright in a cinematograph film or a sound recording shall not affect the separate copyright in any work in respect of which or a substantial part of which the film, or, as the case may be, the sound recording is made.
(5) In the case of work of architecture, copyright shall subsist only in the artistic character and design and shall not extend to processes or methods of construction.
3.2. Therefore, it is evident that Indian law does not presently recognise AI as an author. The “originality” requirement combines independence and creativity. The work must be independently created, and some degree of intellectual skill and judgment is required. Current provisions do not recognize AI as a copyright holder. The authorship requirement effectively excludes AI from independent copyright ownership.
- CAN A MACHINE BE AN AUTHOR?
4.1. As per Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright. The person who caused the work to be created by using artificial intelligence may claim himself to be the author, but the same is not true when the work has been created by AI itself without any human intervention. The issue of authorship in such cases has puzzled all countries of the world. There can be three broad possibilities concerning the authorship issue:
- The copyright system should recognize authorship for AI;
- There should be no authorship in AI-generated work, and the work should fall into the “public domain”; and
- There should be sui generis law rather than copyright law to protect such works
4.2. If the AI is recognised as an author and the AI-generated works are protected under the copyright law, then it would mean that “human creativity” and “machine creativity” are on the same pedestal. On the other hand, if AI-generated works are not protected by copyright law, then it would necessarily mean that human creativity is preferred over machine creativity. Preferring machine creativity over human creativity or putting both on the same pedestal is likely to kill human creativity in the long run.
4.3. Considering AI as the author of the AI-generated work may cause several issues. The work generated by AI may not be flawless. The AI may use biased and toxic language, which may result in defamation or obscenity; incite violence on the lines of caste, creed, or religion; or produce any other undesired result. In such a scenario, it will be difficult to fix the civil and criminal liability of the AI as it has not been recognized as a person. At the most, such work may be deleted or, in worst cases, that AI software may be banned, but till then, it may be too late and irreparable damage might have been caused by that work. Another issue is that if the AI-generated work happens to be “substantially similar” to an existing work that may have copyright, how will the AI be held as an infringer in such a case? Further, if AI is treated as an author, it will not be entitled to transfer ownership in the work, in the absence of personhood.
4.4. It is noteworthy that the copyright laws of many countries also provide moral rights to the author, though this is not an obligation under the TRIPs Agreement. In Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India5, the Delhi High Court observed that “in the material world, laws are geared to protect the right to equitable remuneration. But life is beyond the material. It is temporal as well. Many of us believe in the soul. Moral rights of the author are the soul of his works. The author has a right to preserve, protect, and nurture his creations through his moral rights”. Moral rights are related to the feelings and emotions of the human author. These rights are not meant for AI.
4.5. In Naruto v. Slater6, popularly known as the “Monkey Selfie” case, the court in the United States held that the monkey could not be taken as the author of the selfies it clicked. Copyright in a work can only be conferred on a human author, not on animals or machines, in the U.S.
- LIABILITY OF AI IN INFRINGEMENT:
The 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 AI entities themselves. In this case, when the work does not have a defined owner, it is a difficult task to determine the liability for the infringement of the work, which has already been granted protection under the copyright law.
- CONCLUSION:
India stands at a crossroads restrictive copyright rules may stifle AI innovation, while unregulated use risks undermining creators’ rights. The challenge lies in crafting a balanced, forward-looking legal framework, one that recognises human-AI collaboration, clarifies the status of AI-generated works, and ensures fair, transparent use of copyrighted material in AI development. The global trajectory shows that adaptability, nuanced definitions, and proactive legislative engagement will be key to ensuring that AI becomes a driver of creativity, not a source of unending legal disputes.
7.Reference(S):
1https://www.4ipcouncil.com/application/files/6815/4876/6908/What_is_artificial_intelligence_and_why_does_ it_matter_for_Copyright.pdf
2 Carole Piovesan in Amanda Jerome, ‘Artificial Intelligence ‘Game Changer’ for IP Law, Legal Experts Say (The Lawyer’s Daily, 2 March 2018) accessed 26 November
3 https://copyright.gov.in/Copyright_Act_1957/chapter_iii.html
4 The Copyright Act, 1957, Section 13
5 2005 (30) PTC 253 (Del).
6 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11041 (N. D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2016).
