Authored By: Ridhima Yadav
Indore Institute Of Law
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transformed the fashion sector’s design approach by employing machine learning algorithms to generate innovative patterns, apparel, and imaginative ideas. AI raises complex legal questions concerning ownership, authorship, and intellectual property rights of creations produced by AI, while also offering unprecedented opportunities for efficiency and innovation. India’s existing intellectual property laws were established on the assumption that creative works are produced by people. Consequently, the advancement of autonomous and semi-autonomous AI technologies challenges the traditional legal frameworks that support copyright and design Protection. This article examines the legal challenges related to authorship and ownership, evaluates the applicability of Indian intellectual property laws to AI-created fashion designs, and reviews relevant judicial and international advancements
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Fashion Law, Copyright, Design Protection, Intellectual Property, AI-created fashion designs, Indian law.
Introduction
Artificial intelligence has quickly become one of the most revolutionary technologies impacting the world’s creative industries. AI algorithms are increasingly being used in fashion to create virtual collections, trend forecasts, color combinations, textile patterns, and clothing designs[1]. Today, businesses like fashion retailers and tech-driven design platforms rely on machine learning algorithms that can generate unique visual outputs with minimal assistance from humans. However, the growing reliance on AI-generated creativity raises legal questions about ownership and protection of these works. Traditional intellectual property laws were designed based on the idea that human authors are the source of creativity[2]. Determining who owns the resulting intellectual property becomes more complicated when an AI system independently creates a fashion design. There are uncertainties about whether AI-generated designs can be protected by copyright, who should be considered the author—the owner, user, or programmer of the AI system—and whether current Indian intellectual property laws adequately address these issues.
This article seeks to answer the following research question:
Is it possible for AI-generated fashion designs to be protected as intellectual property under Indian law? If so, who should be recognized as the inventor and legal owner?
This article first explores the framework governing AI-generated works and intellectual property rights. It then looks at relevant sections of Indian copyright and design law, discusses important court rulings and similar global developments, and evaluates how well the current legal system addresses these issues. The paper concludes by detailing the changes needed to tackle the new challenges posed by AI-driven fashion innovation.
Background and Conceptual Framework
Artificial intelligence is the ability of computers to do things that normally need intelligence like learning and recognizing patterns. In the fashion industry, artificial intelligence technology uses sets of data including current designs what customers like past trends, and patterns to create new and creative things[3].
There are two kinds of fashion designs made with artificial intelligence. The first kind is when human designers work with intelligence and change the results that the artificial intelligence system comes up with. The second kind is when the artificial intelligence system makes designs on its own with very little help from humans.
When it comes to the law fashion designs are covered by two rules in India. The first rule is the Copyright Act of 1957 which protects works of art.[4] The second rule is the Designs Act, 2000 which protects unique designs used to make things[5].
The idea of who made something is still important when it comes to copyright law. According to the Copyright Act, the person who made something is the one who started the process of creating it[6]. The law does not say how much humans need to be involved in this process.
In the way for a design to be protected by law, it needs to be new and original. The law was written with designers in mind even if it does not specifically say that a human needs to have made it. So, it is not clear if fashion designs made with intelligence can be protected by law. This is a problem for fashion companies that are using more artificial intelligence to create new things. Artificial intelligence is playing a role in the fashion industry, and this issue needs to be figured out. Fashion designs made with intelligence are becoming more common, and the law needs to catch up with this.
These conceptual ambiguities have significant implications for fashion businesses increasingly relying on AI-generated creative content.
Legal Analysis
Copyright Protection of AI-Generated Fashion Designs
Copyright Law protects human intellect.[7] Original works of art have copyright under Section 13 of the Copyright Act.[8] The Indian Courts have been interpreting ‘originality’ to be something that requires skill, judgment, and creativity.[9] The main difficulty arises in authorship of an AI designed fashion outfit- if an AI produces a fashion outfit independently of any significant creative effort on the part of a human, there is a difficulty in identifying a human author[10] that the copyright could apply to.
The Copyright Act recognizes computer generated works by defining author under section 2(d)(vi) as a person by whom the work is caused to be made[11]. However, this section existed much before the advent of advanced generative AI technology.
Several interpretations may arise:
1) The author is the programmer responsible for writing the algorithm.
2) The instructions and prompts are provided by the author (user).
3) The owner is a corporation whose computer system runs the algorithm.
Since there is no human author, there is a chance the work will have no copyright. All of these interpretations are flawed in many ways. Programmers are seldom the authors of each individual creation. The users are instructed only to provide general instructions. Business ownership could defeat the concept of human authorship.
Design Protection under the Designs Act, 2000
Unlike copyright protection, design protection is more concerned about the originality and visual appearance of the work than the author[12]. Hence, if the AI-created fashion designs pass the tests of originality and innovativeness required by law, they are susceptible to design registration. According to the Design Act, a design is the shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation or line or color composition of an article as provided under section 2(d) of the Act.[13] These tests can be passed by AI-created fashion designs and as long as the outcome is original and visually appealing, then it should be eligible. Nevertheless, issues such as ownership of the registered design have still been unresolved since the Act only seems to assume a human applicant is eligible for registration.
Challenges of Training Data and Infringement
Another pertinent issue lies in the data sets that are required to train an AI algorithm. A lot of the generative AI systems utilize huge databases that contain copyright material in the form of pictures, sketches, and designs of textiles that represent fashion and art.[14]
Issues pertaining to infringement will likely arise in cases where the generated design bears too much resemblance to already copyright material that is part of the AI’s training data sets. There isn’t much clarity available regarding whether using copyright material in training AI could constitute fair dealing or an infringement under Indian Copyright Act.
As such, there could be issues concerning the commercial use of the design for sale where the AI generated design looks remarkably similar to another existing copyright material in the fashion design.
The need for legislative reform: –
The legal ambiguity is created because AI generated works lack explicit recognition in a statute. The lack of clarity over ownership can hinder creativity and investment as AI continues to be extensively utilized for design in the fashion industry.
A detailed legislation should also provide clear guidelines over using copyright material in training AI, the measure of human involvement needed to warrant a copyright and the concept of authorship.
Case Law Discussion
- Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak[15]
In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India broke away from the standard “sweat of the brow” approach and set a benchmark for copyright protection which requires skill, judgment and creativity.
The Court held that rather than work or labor, creativity required a spark of inventiveness to be considered unique. This is particularly applicable to AI-generated fashion designs because it begs the question of whether a unique creation will continue to be recognized when human intervention/creativity is negligible.
The judgment has confirmed that protection for copyright under Indian law continues to be predicated on human creativity.
- Naruto v. Slater[16]
This decision, while not specifically dealing with fashion law, provides significant guidance as to non-human authorship. The dispute involved photographs taken by a monkey of a photographer. The US Court of Appeals stated that as the concept of copyright law is based upon human authors, animals cannot obtain copyright. This case is cited often as in discussions regarding AI works, as it reaffirms that the traditional requirement of human authors as owners of copyright.
- Thaler v. Controller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks[17]
The issue before the court in this case was whether the artificial intelligence system, DABUS, can be an inventor for the purpose of patent law.
Ultimately, courts will not recognize an AI as an inventor, largely because human inventorship is fundamental to existing intellectual property systems.
The reason is comparable to problems that can be seen in a copyright dispute regarding fashion design involving AI generated work. Even though the issues arise in a patent law dispute.
The cases can be seen, taken together, to indicate a bias towards retaining a human-centered interpretation of ownership of intellectual property.
Critical Analysis and Findings
Current Indian legal framework doesn’t seem capable to adequately address the real-world scenario of AI generated fashion designs. While there’s a hint of direction about computer-generated works under section 2(d)(vi) of Copyright Act[18] it was passed during the time computers were merely tools and not truly independent creators.
A key weakness of the present legal framework is its absence of any definition or concrete boundary of human involvement necessary to qualify as “author”. However, with the advancements of generative AI systems, it’ll become much harder to distinguish AI generated from AI assisted works.
The development seen in countries around the world demonstrates similar predicaments. While only partial rights to computer generated works are given in the UK, the US insists on human authorship[19]. Both systems do not completely answer the issues of automatic creation.
The possibility of ownership dispute might lead to commercial hesitation in creating AI assisted collections for the fashion industry. Designers might be reluctant to depend upon such systems if legal protection remains unclear. On the other hand, current creators will be deprived of their ownership rights, as works used for training data may be in peril of inappropriate usage.
A hybrid system should be advocated for India; by drafting legislation for works produced by AI autonomously, while still retaining the concept of human ownership if the element of control exercised by a human being is significant.
Conclusion
Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing the processes by which designs are made, created, and sold, and that is dramatically impacting the fashion industry. However, intellectual property laws of India were originally promulgated on the premise of exclusively human creators. Consequently, issues concerning authorship, ownership, and intellectual property rights over AI-generated fashion design are characterized by a great degree of ambiguity.
In conclusion, while certain AI-generated fashion design may be adequately protected under the present Indian copyright and design laws, there isn’t clear means by which to determine authorship in situations where human involvement is minimal. Additionally, judicial norms, which stress human creativity, only contribute further to ambiguity regarding how truly autonomous AI-generated works can be ascertained. The country should enact amendments to Indian intellectual property laws to include provisions defining conditions of authorship, levels of human input, regulation on the data sets upon which AI is trained, and a separate mechanism dedicated to protecting creative works generated by AI. India needs to have rules that help technology and art grow while also making sure people who create things are protected. The government should make laws that say what it means to be a creator and who owns things made with the help of computers or artificial intelligence. They should also make rules about using people’s work to train computers and have a special way to protect things made by computers. India should have a system that says people own things they make. Also knows that computers are helping to make new things. This way, people are still in charge of what they do. It also works with the fact that computers are getting better at making things.
References and Bibliography
Statutes
- Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, India.
- Designs Act, No. 16 of 2000, India.
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, c. 48 (U.K.).
- Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C.
Cases
- Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1.
- Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).
- Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, [2021] EWCA Civ 1374.
Books
- Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law (2020).
Journal Articles
- Jane C. Ginsburg & Luke Ali Budiardjo, Authors and Machines, 34 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 343 (2019).
- Susan Scafidi, Intellectual Property and Fashion Design, 1 Intell. Prop. & Info. Wealth 115 (2007).
Reports
- World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence (2024).
- S. Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190 (2023).
[1] Jane C. Ginsburg & Luke Ali Budiardjo, Authors and Machines, 34 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 343, 345–48 (2019).
[2] Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law 47–52 (2020).
[3] World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence 15–18 (2024)
[4] Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, ss 13–16, India.
[5] Designs Act, No. 16 of 2000, ss 2(d), 4, India.
[6] Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, s 2(d)(vi), India.
[7] Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, pmbl., India.
[8] Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, s 13, India.
[9] Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1, Paragraphs 33–36.
[10] Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418, 426 (9th Cir. 2018).
[11] Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, s 2(d)(vi), India.
[12] Designs Act, No. 16 of 2000, s 2(d), India.
[13] Designs Act, No. 16 of 2000, s 2(d), India
[14] World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence (2024).
[15] Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1.
[16] Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).
[17] Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, [2021] EWCA Civ 1374.
[18] Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, s 2(d)(vi), India.
[19] Naruto, 888 F.3d at 426.
