ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND COPYRIGHT LAW: THE CHALLENGE OF AUTHORSHIP

ABSTRACT:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has progressed to a stage where it can autonomously produce creative works, including visual art, music, and literary compositions. This evolution raises fundamental questions for copyright law, which traditionally hinges on human creativity and authorship. A pressing question arises: Who should own the rights over works created autonomously by AI systems?

This article explores the issue of authorship and ownership of AI-generated works under copyright law. It analyses the positions adopted in different jurisdictions, including India, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and China, while also examining the ongoing policy debates within the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Through this analysis, the paper highlights the tension between safeguarding human authorship and adapting Copyright law to technological progress, ultimately considering whether AI-generated works should be protected or left in the public domain.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, Authorship, Ownership, WIPO, Intellectual Property.

INTRODUCTION:

Twenty first century has witnessed a huge rise in AI. In that period, AI is one of the most transformative technologies. AI systems today are capable of doing everything that a human can do and also those things that humans are not capable to do so. From generating music, art, literature to legal drafting, AI gradually reshaped the boundaries of creativity and innovation.

AI is defined as a technology that enables machines to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence such as learning, problem- solving, decision making, and language understanding. AI acts independently, replacing the need for human intelligence and inventions. While earlier computer programs operated on fixed instructions, modern AI, especially through machine learning and deep learning, can generate new and unpredictable outputs. Tools like ChatGPT, DALL.E, and other generative platforms now produce original-looking works of literature, music, and art with little to no human intervention. For instance, AI-generated novels and digital artworks have been displayed in galleries, while music composed by AI has been commercially released. Such examples underscore AI’s transformative impact on creative industries and highlight why copyright law faces unprecedented challenges. This ability of machines to “create” challenges the very foundations of copyright law.

Copyright law, on the other hand, is designed to protect and reward human creative expression by granting authors exclusive rights over their works for a limited period. The central dilemma now is whether this protection can or should extend to works generated autonomously by AI. If such works are excluded, they fall into the public domain; if included, the question becomes: who is the rightful author—the programmer, the user, or another stakeholder?

This article examines these questions by analysing the treatment of AI-generated works under copyright law across different jurisdictions and by engaging with international debates, particularly those led by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The aim is to evaluate whether copyright, as traditionally understood, can adapt to the realities of AI-driven creativity.

IMPACT OF AI ON CREATIVITY:

AI is not only assisting human creators but also generating original content independently, redefining the concept of creativity. Platforms like ChatGPT can produce coherent essays, poems, and scripts, while image-generating tools like DALL·E and MidJourney create artwork based on textual prompts. AI is even venturing into music composition, film editing, and design, producing outputs that are often indistinguishable from human-made creations.

This shift has led to new forms of collaborative creativity, where humans guide AI through prompts or datasets, blending human intuition with machine efficiency. Additionally, AI can analyse vast amounts of information to identify patterns, styles, or trends, allowing creators to innovate in ways that were previously impossible. As a result, the creative process is becoming more dynamic and inclusive, expanding opportunities for experimentation and artistic expression.

While AI accelerates content creation, it also raises questions about originality and uniqueness. Since AI often learns from existing works, the outputs may carry elements influenced by prior human creations. Nevertheless, the transformative potential of AI in expanding creative boundaries cannot be ignored, as it introduces a new era where creativity is both human and machine-driven.

POSITION OF THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN AI AND COPYRIGHT IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES:

EUROPEAN UNION:

The Court of Justice of European Union has established in various cases that AI- generated works do not qualify for copyright protection because of the lack of human creativity. In the case of  Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestuário SA v G-Star Raw CV[1], the CJEU clarified that Eu laws generally grant protection to works produced with the assistance of AI when there are substantial human contributions and not without significant human intervention. This concludes that human intervention is the key element for protection under Copyrights.

In the case of Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagbaldes Forening[2], CJEU held that copyright only applies to original works, and originality must reflect the ‘author’s own intellectual creation’ making it clear that a human author is a prerequisite for a copyrighted work to exist.

IN THE UK:

Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 protects the computer generated works that do not have human intervention[3]. In this case, the author will be the person who made arrangements for that work that is generated by the computer. This law grants protection for a period of 50 years from the date of creation of the work. UK has provided such legal clarity in this area. 

The case of Nova Productions v Mazooma Games[4] raised questions about originality in computer-generated works. Courts emphasized that the person arranging or instructing the AI is considered the author, reinforcing human involvement as a key criterion

IN INDIA:

In India, there can be a broad interpretation that can be made for the term “ author”. Section 2(d) of the Act provides a comprehensive understanding of the term “ author”.  According to the Act, the person who created the work will be considered as the author and composer in case of musical works and artist in case of artistic works. In a similar way, a broader interpretation can be given to AI generated works where the person who makes the arrangements becomes the owner of the work provided there is human contribution. The definition of the author in Indian context is inclusive of corporations. Hence, a wider interpretation can be made.

Union Minister of State for Commerce and Industry, Shri. Som Parkash in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha, on 9^th Feb 2024 said that if rights are to be granted to the owner, he shall fulfil the criteria specified under the law. He further mentioned that the current legal system is well-equipped to protect the AI generated works and related innovations and hence there is no proposal to create any right or law in the context of AI generated content[5].

IN CHINA:

The Chinese Courts in the case of Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co. Ltd. v. Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co. Ltd[6]. has first interpreted and confirmed that AI generated outputs could be granted protection. The court recognised that creations by AI programs like Dream Writer should be granted copyright protection. However, it also suggested that the claimant of authorship needs to meet the standard criteria of intellectual creativity as stipulated by Chinese legislation to establish authorship rights.

WIPO’S DISCUSSIONS ON COPYRIGHT LAW AND AI:

The World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) released a discussion paper named “Conversation on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence[7]”. This paper addressed the increasing utilization of AI in creating literary, artistic and musical works. As AI has been increasing, Copyright law faces a difficult policy challenge. The copyright system was built to recognize and reward human creativity, giving authors both dignity and incentives.

If AI-generated works are denied, it would affirm the view that copyright exists primarily to protect human imagination. This approach emphasizes that the law values the originality rooted in human effort over machine output. On the other hand, granting copyright to AI-created works would shift the purpose of the system toward maximizing the production and availability of creative content, regardless of whether a person or a machine created it. Such a shift could redefine copyright’s role, from safeguarding human authorship to simply ensuring a steady flow of new works in the public domain creating no difference between human made work and machine -made work.

Two different viewpoints were emerged at the third session on Intellectual Property Rights and Artificial Intelligence. On one side, members argued that works created by AI should not receive copyright protection. Their reasoning was that AI outputs are largely the result of automated processes, with human involvement being too minimal or too technical to justify authorship. Since copyright law has always been built on the principle of human creativity, they felt it risky to extend protection to a technology that is still developing. According to this perspective, AI-generated works should remain in the public domain so that everyone can freely access and use them.

On the other side, some scholars expressed for protecting AI-generated works. They pointed out that refusing copyright simply because there is no human intervention would automatically place these works in the public domain. While that might benefit users in the short term, it could also discourage innovation and investment in AI-driven creativity. Supporters of this view further noted the inconsistency in granting patent protection to the developers of AI systems while denying protection to the works produced by those very systems. In their view, copyright should extend to AI creations so that the legal framework keeps pace with technological progress.

Ultimately, this debate highlights two competing priorities: safeguarding the public domain versus incentivizing the continued development of AI-generated creativity. Those in favour of protection argue that adapting copyright law to cover AI outputs would strike a balance, encouraging innovation while still ensuring public access to creative works.

WAY FORWARD:

The growing role of AI in creative processes necessitates a flexible, forward-looking approach to copyright law. Future frameworks should recognize the distinct nature of AI-generated works while maintaining the principle of human creativity. One practical solution is to grant authorship or ownership rights to the person or entity that provides substantial input, guidance, or arrangements enabling AI to produce the work. In addition, mechanisms to address disputes over AI-generated content should be established, ensuring clarity in ownership and responsibility.

Global cooperation, particularly through forums like WIPO, will be essential to develop harmonized standards that encourage innovation while safeguarding public access. Periodic review and updates to copyright policies will ensure that the legal framework keeps pace with rapidly evolving AI technologies. Education and awareness programs for creators, developers, and policymakers are also important to facilitate the responsible use of AI in creative industries. By implementing these measures, copyright law can foster an environment where both human creativity and AI innovation coexist and thrive.

CONCLUSION:

AI-generated works are fundamentally transforming the landscape of creative expression, raising complex questions about authorship, ownership, and legal protection. While jurisdictions vary in their approach-from the EU’s strict requirement for human authorship to China’s recognition of AI creations-there is a growing consensus that copyright law must evolve to reflect technological realities. The key challenge lies in balancing the protection of human creativity with the promotion of AI-driven innovation, ensuring that neither is compromised.

Integrating AI-generated works into existing legal frameworks provides an opportunity to encourage innovation while maintaining public access to creative content. Thoughtful policies that recognize human contributions alongside AI outputs, combined with international harmonization and adaptive legislation, will ensure a fair and sustainable creative ecosystem. Ultimately, embracing AI in creative industries can expand opportunities for artistic expression, foster new business models, and shape a future where technology and human imagination work together to drive cultural and economic progress.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Case C-683/17, Cofemel-Sociedade de Vestuario SA v. G-Star Raw CV, ECLI:EU:C:2019:721 (CJEU Sept. 12, 2019).
2. Case C-683/17, Cofemel-Sociedade de Vestuario SA v. G-Star Raw CV, ECLI:EU:C:2019:721, para 31 (CJEU Sept. 12, 2019).
3. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, S.9(3) (UK); Copyright Act 1994, S.5 (N.Z.); Copyright Ordinance, Cap. 528, S.11(3);Copyright & Related Rights Act 2000, S.21(f) (Ir.).
4. Nova Prods. Ltd. v. Mazooma Games Ltd., [2007] EWCA (Civ) 219 (appeal taken from Eng.) (U.K. Mar. 14, 2007).
5. Ministry of Commerce and Industry, EXISTING IPR REGIME WELL-EQUIPPED TO PROTECT AI GENERATED WORKS, NO NEED TO CREATE SEPARATE CATEGORY OF RIGHTS,(Last visited Sep. 24,2025, 9:22  AM), Press Release:Press Information Bureau.
6. WIPO Intellectual Prop. Judges Forum, Case No. Y0305MC No. 14010 (2022).
7. WIPO Secretariat, Revised Issue Paper on INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1 Rev., Para 23 (June 11, 2022).

 [1]Case C-683/17, Cofemel-Sociedade de Vestuario SA v. G-Star Raw CV, ECLI:EU:C:2019:721 (CJEU Sept. 12, 2019).

[2]Case C-683/17, Cofemel-Sociedade de Vestuario SA v. G-Star Raw CV, ECLI:EU:C:2019:721, para 31 (CJEU Sept. 12, 2019).

[3]Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, S.9(3) (UK); Copyright Act 1994, S.5 (N.Z.); Copyright Ordinance, Cap. 528, S.11(3);Copyright & Related Rights Act 2000, S.21(f) (Ir.).

[4]Nova Prods. Ltd. v. Mazooma Games Ltd., [2007] EWCA (Civ) 219 (appeal taken from Eng.) (U.K. Mar. 14, 2007).

[5] Ministry of Commerce and Industry, EXISTING IPR REGIME WELL-EQUIPPED TO PROTECT AI GENERATED WORKS, NO NEED TO CREATE SEPARATE CATEGORY OF RIGHTS,(Last visited Sep. 24,2025, 9:22  AM), Press Release:Press Information Bureau.

[6]WIPO Intellectual Prop. Judges Forum, Case No. Y0305MC No. 14010 (2022).

[7]WIPO Secretariat, Revised Issue Paper on INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1 Rev., Para 23 (June 11, 2022).