Authored By: Urmila Biswas
Department Of Law, University of Calcutta (Hazra Campus)
ABSTRACT
The rapid development of Generative Artificial Intelligence has helped individuals and fashion houses reshape the creative landscape of fashion design and production. There is fast-paced development by means of the AI- driven system, posing unparalleled challenges to human creative expressions. This rapid technological development has resulted in several disputes over questions of originality, ownership, liability, and whether AI- generated fashion design comes under the ambit of intellectual property law. The legal framework of Creative fashion works and designs in India mainly centers around the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Designs Act, 2000. This article essentially deals with the Generative AI framework in intellectual property law in India. The background, concept, the limitations, relevant legislative provisions, and critical analysis, along with relevant judicial decisions, will be discussed. There are various conceptual gaps that will be addressed, along with various relevant suggestions and conceptual clarifications for practical application.
INTRODUCTION
The term Generative AI refers to an expository framework that helps create new content, such as text, images, video, code, and more. Recent generative AI applications assist individuals with a wide range of tasks, including creating new content, assisting with tasks, and, most fundamentally, answering questions.[1] The Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) is widely used in the Fashion Design Creation Industry in contemporary times, significantly influencing the global fashion sector. The use of AI in fashion design has increased the innovation and efficiency in fashion design, clothing patterns, textile prints, and flower motifs, which are now made within seconds. It creates intricate problems, and various issues arise in the context of Indian intellectual property law. Whether fashion design creations, done with the help of AI, qualify as an original artistic work under the ambit of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957? Moreover, an important question arises whether machine-generated outputs satisfy the Indian ‘modicum of creativity’ standard. The primary question remains whether the authorship vests in the designer who gives the instructions, the creator of the AI system, or the fashion house arranging the tool. In India, the rapid use of Generative AI in fashion design creation attracts legal provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Designs Act, 2000. Thus, it essentially concerns the issue of originality, ownership, and the overlap between industrial and artistic fashion design protection. Finally, the infringement, liability, and the different reforms are driven to reconcile innovation in AI-driven fashion design with the foundational principles of Intellectual property law. This article will fundamentally answer the question of whether the existing copyright and design law framework in India adequately helps to overcome the legal challenges and reforms that are required to regulate the AI-driven creativity in the fashion sector.
BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, has received various challenges relating to the advancement of the Generative AI framework. It was essentially enacted in the light of the view that only humans can emerge as creators, by means of their creativity and expertise, leading to the formation of intellectual property in various sectors like fashion, design, and different artistic fields. The artistic work is essentially included in Section 2(c)[2] of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, which includes works such as paintings, sculptures, and other works of artistic quality or artistic craftsmanship. The fashion design creation industry directly falls under the ambit of the Copyright Act, possessing both artistic quality and craftsmanship. Further, it is provided under Section 17[3] that the author of a work shall be recognized as the first owner of the work. An invisible link is created between the creator of a work and their rights attached to the same, which is essentially an intellectual property. Further, it is presupposed that the Sections 18 to 21[4] relate to assignment and licensing, which can only be done by human entities.
The protection of fashion design creations in India is primarily governed by the Designs Act, 2000. The act in Section 2(d)[5] states that different shapes, configurations, patterns, composition of lines and colors that appeal to the eye qualify as design. This provision directly relates the fashion industry to the act, as the value of aesthetic creations is in demand at all times. Further, Section 4 states that the designs shall qualify for registration if they are original and are not disclosed to the general masses in India nor in any other country. Lastly, Section 5[6] and Section 11[7] relates to designers who may register their creations and get an exclusive right of protection for a limited period of 10 years, thereby protecting fashion innovations from parody. The rampant use of Generative AI in fashion design creation also raises similar questions relating to ownership and originality. Indian Intellectual Property laws, including the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Designs Act, 2000, do not contain any explicit reference to the Generative AI framework and its regulation. Thus, it cannot be denied that there lies a significant regulatory gap in the existing intellectual property framework.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The implications of Generative AI in the Copyright framework
In the year 1994, decades before Generative AI came into use, the provision relating to computer-generated work was added by means of Section 2(d)(vi)[8] in the Copyright Act. The main essence is that, with respect to literary, dramatic, artistic, or musical work which is computer-developed, the author is essentially the person who causes the work to be created.[9] However, the phrase ‘who causes the work to be created’ was defined by scholars as the persons who direct the finances, control the computational process, rather than an individual who gives prompts. The present situation is much more complex as there are multiple designers, trainers, fashion house and garment design houses who influence the final output. The traditional thinkers are of the view that only humans can be considered as creators, while another sect of modern thinkers has expressed the view that the user who provides qualitative and creative ideas to the Generative AI system, or the company that developed the application, may qualify as the person who created the work.
Interpretation of fashion design creation and its limitations in the AI context
The emergence of Generative AI in the fashion sector has made the legal interpretation of fashion design creation within the boundaries of Indian intellectual property law a tough job. Traditionally, fashion design was preserved under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Design Act, 2000, when the creative designs are economically used in industries. Section 13[10] of the Copyright Act states about ‘original artistic works’ which include different patterns, sketches, and drawings used in the fashion design creation industry. Even though the issue of originality and ownership came before the Indian courts many times. The rulings are not quite satisfactory as they placed too much importance on the agency of human honor and reputation, which was observed in the case of Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India.[11] The Delhi High Court adjudged that the moral rights are very closely attached to the creative personality of the author, and thus the soul of the author.
The most important notion popularized by the Indian Courts is that the original expression of ideas is protected rather than mere ideas, which was upheld in the case of R.G. Anand v. Delux Films.[12]All these judicial interpretations put forward the view that the creative expression of human ideas is recognized. However, the use of the high-capacity multitasking cloud database and Generative AI system to produce output in the fashion sector, and its contributions, cannot be denied. The amount and extent of human creativity need to be analyzed by means of a proper systematic framework.
The different limitations of Copyright protection have been highlighted in the landmark case of Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co.,[13] where the court of law held that once a fashion design is created, and is applied to more than fifty industrial stuffs, safeguards automatically shift from the Copyright to the Design law. The Designs Act also does not directly address the issue of Generative AI creations; Therefore, there lies a significant interpretative legal gap in the Indian fashion industry, which needs to be taken up as an urgent matter of concern, especially in the era of generative AI.
The Relation between Legal Personhood and Generative AI
The concept of Legal Personhood, in special reference to the fashion sector, includes entities like fashion designers, fashion houses, and brands. They are the legal persons who are capable of holding different rights and obligations, entering into contracts, and can also maintain property that is enshrined under the law. The conception of legal personhood serves a variety of functions, the most prominent of which is to enforce rights by means of litigation in the court of law; the rights and liabilities associated with the product, ownership, design, and brand name can also be protected. In the fashion design creation industry, they are mostly organized commercial structures rather than individuals. Some examples are Gucci, Chanel, Louis Vuitton, and Sabyasachi’s collections. Thus, the brand itself can exploit its label, and can sue in case of infringement of the commercial value of the same.
However, with the emerging technologies and the use of Generative AI in the fashion sector, the traditional conception of legal personhood, creators, and artists has become a matter of debate. It was stated by the critics that an entity lacking legal personhood basically meant something that is ‘not visible to the eyes. If legal personhood is granted to an invisible entity, it would result in infringers who cannot be sued, cannot defend against counterargument, and cannot be held accountable, which would result in conceptual errors. However, it is to be noted that emerging technologies demand that the new forms of production in the creative fashion industry should adapt itself with changing times. The European Union has made a remarkable proposal for granting legal personhood to the AI system. Limited electronic personhood has been granted to electronic robots.[14]
LANDMARK CASES
Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co.[15]
This is a landmark case where the court of law clarified and filled the gap between the Copyright and Design protection for industrial products, particularly in the fashion design creation sector. The plaintiff is a manufacturing company incorporated under the laws of the USA, and is engaged in the business, manufacture, and sale of upholstery fabrics. The plaintiff has an international reputation and is operating throughout the world. It was contended by the plaintiff that the defendant’s upholstery fabric had identical copies and distinctive features similar to the plaintiff’s artistic work. Thus, the plaintiff contended that the defendant had copied the work of the plaintiff’s manufacturing company. The Delhi High Court adjudged that when products are industrially manufactured in large quantities, especially textiles and fabric patterns, they fall under the Design law rather than Copyright.[16]
Ritika Private Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. [17]
This is a landmark case of the fashion and textile sector in India because it disentangles the barriers between copyright and design protection. The plaintiff is Ritika Private Ltd., which is a female garment manufacturing company. The plaintiff contended that Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. imitated the traditional floral patterns and designs of the garments of Ritika Private Ltd., and thus a suit was filed for Copyright infringement. The court of law decided that the plaintiff’s designs were used in the mass production of garments; They industrially applied the designs to numerous articles which exceeded the statutory limits prescribed under the Copyright Act. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim Copyright infringement against Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd.; The suit was dismissed. It is firmly established from the judgment that mass-production of garments needs to be given protection under Design law rather than Copyright law. Even if the designs are AI-generated, once they are used in industrially manufactured products, protection must be relied under the ambit of Design registration rather than Copyright protection.[18]
Rahul Mishra Design Copyright Dispute
In this dispute, the famous Indian fashion designer Rahul Mishra filed a suit asserting that unauthorized garment manufacturers had replicated his “Tigress” design and floral patterns from his Sunderbans collection, and sold them as fake garments. Thus, this case is significant as it holds that copyright infringement harms the reputation of the fashion designer. The Court of law held that unauthorized use of fashion motifs, designs, and patterns in the fashion sector disturbs and causes high losses to the designer’s brand reputation. Therefore, protection is granted so as to ensure that all the designs, patterns, and fashion motifs receive copyright protection; Proper permission needs to be taken before imitation.[19]
CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The increasing use of Generative Artificial Intelligence exposes the Creative fashion industry to significant risks and limitations within the present legal structure in India. The time when the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Designs Act, 2000 came into being, it considered humans as the sole entity responsible for creative works. With technological advancement and innovation came rapid development in the fashion sector. However, there also arose certain problems relating closely to originality, a modicum of creativity, AI-generated textiles, prints, and patterns. Controversy arose as to who shall be vested with the ownership, the AI platform or the prompt giver, which has no direct legal provision in India currently. Thus, the Hon’ble Judges have the most important role to play in this regard; they exercise their skills and decision-making capability to adjudicate on AI-related disputes. The traditional limitations of human creativity based solely on human creation need to be reformed. There should be regulatory and structural reforms in the existing laws in India, so as to adapt to the technological innovations and changing social realities.
However, it is equally true that AI can generate many designs and creative fashion works in a very short period of time, making the individual registration of designs very impractical. Since there is no clear legal framework, its application becomes very ambiguous for the designers, fashion brands, and fashion houses. The traditional human authorship and creativity standards need to be improvised to encourage technological innovation and ensure development. We need to overcome the challenges relating to uncertainty in ownership, licensing challenges, and other liabilities relating to AI-generated works. Therefore, there is a growing need for legislative interpretation, executive actions, and judicial activism so as to specifically address the importance of Generative AI technology and applications in the fashion industry. The crux of the matter is that there is a need for an equitable regulatory approach to acknowledge both technological innovation and the rights of the human creators, so as to ensure a value-based AI-driven fashion industry.
CONCLUSION
There were deep down tensions between human-centered architectural statute and the technological impact of creative systems on autonomous output production in fashion design units. There arose significant challenges to the new possibilities of creation of fashion designs, structures, and production by means of AI, which directly shattered the foundation of the existing intellectual property law in India. The different judgments provided in Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co.[20], Rahul Mishra Design Copyright Dispute[21], and Ritika Private Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd.[22] also laid emphasis on human agency, the altering position from Copyright Act to Design Act in the fashion sector. We can conclude that the current legal position, regarding the intellectual property framework, is not well organized. The legal status of AI-assisted fashion design, particularly regarding ownership and originality are ambiguous. As technology is evolving with time, there is a need for reforms in policy, unhindered provisions relating to ownership in creative sectors, and a balance between innovation and human creativity.
REFERENCE(S):
[1]Introduction to generative AI and agents, Available at: https://share.google/V2xIoWed41H6xMr22 /, (Last Visited: March 6, 2026).
[2] Indian Copyright Act, 1957, § 2(c), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[3] Indian Copyright Act, 1957, § 17, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[4] Indian Copyright Act, 1957, §§ 18-21, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[5] The Designs Act, 2000, § 2(d), No. 16, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
[6] The Designs Act, 2000, § 5, No. 16, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
[7] The Designs Act, 2000, § 11, No. 16, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
[8] Indian Copyright Act, 1957, § 2(d)(vi), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[9] Navigating Indian Copyright Framework in the Age of AI-generated works, NLIU Cell (10th October, 2023), https://share.google/peC97i672QqtAvinm, (Last Visited: March 8, 2026).
[10] Indian Copyright Act, 1957, § 13, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[11] Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005) 30 PTC 228 (Delhi High Court).
[12] R.G. Anand v. Delux Films & Ors. (1978) AIR 1631.
[13] Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. and Ors. 2006 (32) PTC157 (DEL).
[14] Robot as Legal Person: Electronic Personhood in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence, PMC PubMed Central (23rd December, 2021), https://share.google/K6UPEuUeVhkz2wjN, (Last Visited: March 7, 2026).
[15] Ibid.,13.
[16] Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. and Ors., Indian Kanoon. Org (13th January, 2006), https://share.google/4LrK14MmE489aNY6L, (Last Visited: March 8, 2026).
[17] Ritika Private Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. CS (OS) No. 182/2011.
[18] Ritika Private Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Indian Kanoon. Org (23rd March, 2016), https://share.google/vywlJtl3qknDb7pWt, (Last Visited: March 8, 2026).
[19] Delhi HC rules in favor of designer Rahul Mishra in design theft case- Counterfeit clothes worn by Kapil Sharma, Orry and Badshah, The Economic Times (26th August, https://m.economictimes.com/magazines/panache/delhi-hc-rules-in-favor-of-designer-rahul-mishra-in-design-theft-case-counterfeit-clothes-worn-by-kapil-sharma-orry-and-badshah/articleshow/123525406.cms?utm_source=chatgpt.com, (Last Visited: March 8, 2026).
[20] Ibid.,13.
[21] Ibid.,19.
[22] Ibid.,17.
