INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE AGE OF AI: WHO OWNS AI CREATED WORKS

ABSTRACT

The advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has revolutionized the creation of artistic and innovative works, posing significant challenges for intellectual property (IP) law. Existing IP frameworks, built around the notions of human authorship and inventorship, face difficulties in addressing works generated autonomously by AI—whether in art, literature, or inventions. This article explores the ownership dilemma surrounding AI-generated outputs by analysing key global case law, including Thaler v. Vidal and Naruto v. Slater, alongside comparative insights from jurisdictions such as the United States, European Union, India, and China. It further examines the ethical and legal debates on recognizing AI as an author, evaluates the implications for businesses and innovation, and reviews emerging policy approaches. The study concludes that although present laws restrict authorship to humans, future reforms may adopt hybrid or sui generis models to balance innovation with accountability in the era of intelligent machines.

INTRODUCTION

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into creative and innovative domains has sparked profound legal, ethical, and commercial debates worldwide. AI systems are now capable of generating artistic works, drafting literature, composing music, and even inventing new technologies with minimal human intervention. This unprecedented shift challenges the very foundation of intellectual property (IP) law, which has historically been grounded in the principle of human creativity and authorship. Intellectual property rights, encompassing copyright, patents, and trademarks, were designed to protect the intellectual labor of individuals and corporations. However, the emergence of AI-generated works raises fundamental questions: Can an AI be recognized as an author or inventor? If not, who should own the rights to creations produced through autonomous algorithms—the programmer, the user, or should such works remain unprotected in the public domain? This article examines these questions by analysing case law, statutory frameworks, and comparative legal perspectives across multiple jurisdictions. It further explores the implications for businesses that increasingly rely on AI tools, as well as the ethical considerations in extending legal recognition to non-human creators. By engaging with these issues, the study seeks to highlight potential reforms that can balance innovation, accountability, and legal certainty in the age of intelligent machines.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE CHALLENGE OF AI

Intellectual Property (IP) law has traditionally been grounded in the idea of human creativity. Copyright safeguards “original literary, artistic, and musical works,” patents protect inventions that demonstrate novelty, usefulness, and inventive steps, and trademarks preserve commercial identity. At the core of all these systems lies a common principle: IP exists to reward human innovation.

The emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) challenges this established framework. AI technologies, trained on massive datasets and capable of autonomous decision-making, are now able to produce art, inventions, and music without direct human involvement. This shift creates a pressing legal question: Can AI be recognized as an “author” or “inventor,” and if not, who should rightfully own the creations generated by AI?

AUTHORSHIP AND OWNERSHIP: COMPETING MODELS

Three primary schools of thought dominate the debate:

1. Human-Centric Model – IP rights vest in the human programmer, trainer, or user of the AI system. This model aligns with traditional legal principles that recognize only natural or legal persons as rights holders.
2. AI-as-Author Model – Some scholars suggest that AI itself should be acknowledged as the creator. However, this faces obstacles, as no jurisdiction currently recognizes non-human entities as authors or inventors.
3. Public Domain Model – Others argue that AI-generated works should fall outside IP protection, entering the public domain. While this ensures open access, it risks discouraging investment in AI innovation.

The foundation of copyright law lies in the concepts of originality and authorship. Under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, copyright subsists in “original” literary, artistic, musical, and dramatic works, and the “author” is defined as the person who creates the work. These two concepts—originality and authorship—are central to determining ownership and scope of protection, especially in the context of AI-generated works.

Indian law does not require novelty in the patent sense; rather, originality refers to the work originating from the author and not being a mere copy. Courts in India follow the principle that a minimal degree of creativity is sufficient.

The concept of originality in copyright law has been interpreted differently across jurisdictions, yet a common thread persists: originality does not equate to novelty in the patent sense, but rather to the application of human skill and creativity. In University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd. [1], the English court clarified that originality lies in works that stem from the author’s skill, labour, and judgment, even if the work is not entirely new. Building on this principle, the Indian Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak[2] adopted the “modicum of creativity” test, striking a middle path between the traditional “sweat of the brow” doctrine—which rewarded effort alone—and a higher standard of creativity. The Court ruled that headnotes prepared by law reporters involved sufficient intellectual input to qualify as original works, thereby requiring some creative spark beyond mere compilation. Similarly, in the United States, the landmark decision in Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.[3] rejected the sweat of the brow approach, holding that mere labour or industrious collection of facts was not enough to claim copyright protection; a minimal level of creativity was essential. These judicial interpretations underscore the human-centric requirement of originality, linking copyright protection directly to intellectual effort and creative judgment. However, this creates a significant dilemma in the case of Artificial Intelligence. AI systems, driven by algorithms and vast datasets, can generate artistic, literary, or musical works with little to no direct human input. The pressing question, therefore, is whether such outputs meet the threshold of originality established by courts. If originality is inherently tied to human intellectual contribution, AI-generated works may fail to qualify for protection under traditional copyright frameworks, leaving them in a legal grey area unless legislatures intervene to redefine or expand the concept of authorship and originality.

Countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union are also confronting challenges surrounding AI-generated content. In the United States, the Copyright Office has consistently refused to extend copyright protection to non-human creators. It has clarified that it will only “register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being.”

In Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held, most notably in the Infopaq case (C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagbaldes Forening)[4], that copyright applies only to original works where originality reflects the “author’s own intellectual creation.” This has been widely interpreted to mean that a work must embody the personality of a human author to qualify for protection.

In contrast, the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act recognizes the creator of the AI or the individual who made the necessary arrangements as the author, but only if there is no human author. This can be referred from UK copyright law, section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA), which states:

  “In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”

Similar provisions exist in jurisdictions such as Hong Kong (SAR), Ireland, and New Zealand. India, while broadly aligned with this approach, frequently looks to international legal developments for guidance. As global debates on AI and intellectual property continue to evolve, India may either adopt comparable principles or chart its own distinct path.

AI AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

India’s intellectual property  framework continues to adopt a strictly human-centric approach to authorship and inventorship, thereby excluding Artificial Intelligence (AI) from independent recognition. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 2(d) defines an “author” as the person who creates the work. In the case of literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works, this is the individual who translates the creative expression into tangible form. Similarly, under the Patents Act, 1970, Section 6 read with Section 2(1)(y) limits the term “true and first inventor” to natural persons, expressly excluding entities such as corporations or non-human agents unless acting through human inventors.

Although Indian courts have not yet confronted a dispute directly involving AI-generated works, jurisprudence on originality offers useful guidance. In Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak [5]the Supreme Court of India emphasized that copyright subsists only where there is a “minimal degree of creativity” attributable to human skill and judgment. Applying this reasoning, a work generated solely by an AI system would arguably fail the originality test, since no human creative input exists. Similarly, in Tech Plus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Jyoti Janda[6], the Delhi High Court reiterated that copyright cannot vest where a work lacks originality grounded in human effort. These precedents reinforce the position that Indian law requires human authorship as a prerequisite for protection.

On the patents side, Indian jurisprudence also underscores the requirement of human inventorship. In Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd[7]., while the dispute centered on genetically modified seeds, the Supreme Court’s observations stressed the role of human ingenuity and application of mind in satisfying patentability criteria. Extrapolating from this principle, AI systems that autonomously generate inventions would be ineligible for patent rights unless a human inventor can be identified as directing or conceptualizing the process.

Indian scholarship echoes this interpretation. N.S. Gopalakrishnan has argued that Indian IP statutes are not equipped to deal with non-human creators and that AI-generated works should either remain in the public domain or be attributed to human agents guiding the AI[8]. Furthermore, NITI Aayog’s 2018 discussion paper on AI highlights regulatory gaps but stops short of recommending authorship rights for AI, emphasizing instead the importance of ethical and human-centered governance frameworks.

Thus, India’s current legal position aligns with the global consensus established in cases such as Naruto v. Slater[9] and the DABUS litigation across jurisdictions, which reject non-human authorship. Until legislative reforms are introduced, intellectual property rights in India will remain firmly grounded in human authorship and inventorship, with AI relegated to the status of a tool rather than a rights-bearing entity.

THE FOREIGN SCENARIO: GLOBAL JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE RESPONSES

Across jurisdictions, courts and policymakers have consistently declined to recognize Artificial Intelligence as an independent author or inventor, reinforcing the human-centric foundation of intellectual property law. In the United States, the landmark Thaler v. Hirshfeld (USPTO[10] involved Stephen Thaler’s attempt to list his AI system “DABUS” as the inventor in patent applications. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and subsequently the courts rejected the claim, holding that the Patent Act requires an “individual” — meaning a natural person — to be named as inventor. A similar approach was seen in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Naruto v. Slater[11], where a macaque’s “selfie” could not attract copyright, since non-humans were held ineligible to claim rights. These cases underscore the insistence on human agency as a prerequisite for IP protection.

The European Union has also adopted a restrictive stance. The European Patent Office (EPO) rejected Thaler’s DABUS applications (Decision of the Legal Board of Appeal, J 8/20 and J 9/20, 2022), ruling that only natural persons can qualify as inventors. The UK Court of Appeal in Thaler v. Comptroller General of Patents[12] echoed this reasoning, though one judge acknowledged the policy vacuum in addressing AI’s growing creative role.

China, on the other hand, has begun to experiment with limited recognition of AI-generated works. In Shenzhen Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun[13], the court granted copyright protection to an AI-generated financial news article, reasoning that sufficient human input existed in programming and operation. However, subsequent cases have shown reluctance to extend blanket protection to autonomous outputs, maintaining human oversight as central to ownership.

Collectively, these developments demonstrate that while jurisdictions differ in nuance, the prevailing global consensus remains that AI cannot independently own intellectual property. Instead, ownership is attributed to human creators, programmers, or operators, pending legislative reform. Scholars argue that without harmonized rules, businesses operating transnationally will face uncertainty in exploiting AI-generated innovations. [14]

IMPACT ON BUSINESS AND INNOVATION

1. Creative Industries – Musicians, publishers, and filmmakers increasingly use AI tools. The lack of IP protection for AI-generated works may complicate licensing and royalties.
2. Technology Companies – Firms developing AI systems may rely on contracts, trade secrets, and licensing rather than copyright or patent rights.
3. Startups and Innovation – Ambiguity in ownership could deter investment, particularly in industries where intellectual property forms the backbone of commercial strategy.

PROSPECTIVE LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS

International bodies, particularly the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), have recognized the disruptive implications of Artificial Intelligence for intellectual property rights and have initiated extensive consultations on the subject. The WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence has opened global dialogue among governments, industry stakeholders, and academics to address gaps in the current legal framework. Potential reforms being debated include the clarification of statutory definitions of “author” and “inventor,” so as to determine whether human involvement must always be explicit or whether limited recognition can be extended to AI-assisted creations. Another proposal involves the introduction of disclosure obligations, whereby applicants seeking protection for AI-assisted inventions must reveal the extent of AI’s role in the creation process, ensuring transparency and preventing misuse of the system.

Equally significant is the call for harmonization of approaches across jurisdictions, since divergent national laws could lead to legal uncertainty and forum shopping by entities seeking favorable treatment. International consistency is particularly vital for businesses operating across borders, given the global nature of AI-driven innovation. Further, WIPO encourages the development of contractual and licensing frameworks that clearly allocate ownership, liability, and responsibility between programmers, operators, and end-users. Such arrangements would not only protect human accountability but also encourage investment and innovation by reducing ambiguity.

By fostering collaborative reforms at the international level, WIPO seeks to strike a balance between incentivizing creativity and ensuring that human oversight and ethical responsibility remain central to the intellectual property system in the age of AI.

CONCLUSION

The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence has undeniably blurred the traditional boundaries of intellectual property law. While AI systems are capable of producing art, literature, music, and even complex inventions with minimal human intervention, the prevailing legal frameworks across jurisdictions remain firmly anchored in the principle of human authorship and inventorship. Courts in the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union have repeatedly affirmed that only natural persons can be recognized as inventors or authors, while countries like China have cautiously experimented with limited recognition of AI-generated outputs. In India too, the statutory regime continues to exclude non-human creators, underscoring the need for legislative clarity.

The current global consensus reflects a cautious approach — one that prioritizes human accountability, legal certainty, and ethical responsibility over extending independent rights to machines. However, the growing integration of AI into business, technology, and innovation cannot be ignored. The dilemma is no longer whether AI will reshape the contours of intellectual property, but how quickly legal systems can adapt to this reality.

Moving forward, potential solutions may lie in sui generis frameworks, hybrid ownership models, and mandatory disclosure obligations that recognize AI’s role while ensuring human oversight. International efforts led by organizations like WIPO highlight the importance of harmonization, as fragmented national approaches could undermine global commerce and stifle innovation. Ultimately, the challenge is to craft a balanced regime that both safeguards the human-centric foundations of intellectual property and embraces the transformative potential of artificial intelligence.

Thus, the future of intellectual property law in the age of AI will depend not on replacing human authorship, but on redefining it in a way that accommodates collaboration between human creativity and machine intelligence.

REFERENCE(S):

CASE LAWS

1. University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd. (1916) 2 Ch 601 (UK)
2. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1
3. Thaler v. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2021] EWHC 2412 (Pat).
4. Thaler v. Hirshfeld (USPTO, 2021).
5. Tech Plus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Jyoti Janda [2006 (33) PTC 95 (Del)]
6. Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd [(2019) 3 SCC 381]
7. Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents [2022] FCA 879 (Australia).
8. Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).
9. Shenzhen Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun [2019] (Nanshan District Court)
10. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)

STATUTES (INDIA & ABROAD)

1. The Copyright Act, 1957 (India).
2. The Patents Act, 1970 (India).
3. U.S. Copyright Act, 1976.
4. European Patent Convention, 1973.
5. UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.

REPORT & POLICY PAPERS

11. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence (2019, 2020, 2021).
12. European Parliament, Report on Intellectual Property Rights for the Development of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (2020).
13. NITI Aayog, National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (Government of India, 2018).
14. S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Public Views on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy (2020).

BOOK & ACADEMIC ARTICLES

15. Annemarie Bridy, “The Evolution of Authorship: Work Made by Code” (2016) 39(2) Columbia Journal of Law & Arts.
16. Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law (Cambridge University Press, 2020).
17. S. Gopalakrishnan, “Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence in India” (2021) NUALS Law Journal.
18. Pamela Samuelson, “Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works” (1986) 47 University of Pittsburgh Law Review.

[1] (1916) 2 Ch 601 (UK)

[2] (2008) 1 SCC 1

[3] (499 U.S. 340, 1991)

[4] EU:C:2009:465 (16 July 2009)

[5] ibid

[6] [2006 (33) PTC 95 (Del)]

[7] [(2019) 3 SCC 381]

[8] Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence in India, NUALS Law Journal, 2021

[9] (9th Cir. 2018)

[10] [558 F. Supp. 3d 238 (E.D. Va. 2021)]

[11] [888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018)]

[12] [2021 EWCA Civ 1374]

[13] [2019] (Nanshan District Court)

[14] (E. Rosati, Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union, OUP 2019).