INTRODUCTION
Artificial intelligence (AI) has increasingly begun to influence creative industries, challenging long-standing assumptions about authorship and ownership within copyright law. Modern AI systems can produce literary, artistic, and musical works with minimal human participation. This shift raises a critical legal issue—whether such outputs can be attributed to any recognised author under existing law.
The Indian copyright regime, structured under the Copyright Act, 1957, continues to be grounded in the concept of human authorship. However, the statute does not expressly deal with works generated by AI. This absence of clarity creates uncertainty regarding whether such works qualify for protection. In this context, the article evaluates how Indian law currently engages with AI-generated content and whether existing doctrines of authorship and ownership remain sufficient.
AI-CREATED CONTENT AND THE LIMITS OF HUMAN-CENTRIC CREATIVITY
Outputs generated through artificial intelligence typically emerge from systems trained on large volumes of data, enabling them to produce content that closely resembles human-created material. A useful distinction must be drawn between situations where AI merely supports human creativity and those where the system independently generates content with minimal human direction.[1]
Copyright law has traditionally protected expressions originating from human intellectual effort. Further, in situations involving AI-generated material, the lack of direct human creativity makes it difficult to apply traditional copyright principles, as the creative process is no longer entirely human-driven. While humans may design or operate AI systems, the actual act of creation is increasingly detached from human involvement.
AUTHORSHIP UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
Under Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the concept of authorship is defined across different categories of works. For computer-generated material, the law attributes authorship to the individual responsible for initiating the creation process.[2] On a surface reading, this provision seems capable of extending to outputs produced using artificial intelligence.
However, the interpretation of this provision remains ambiguous. The phrase “person who causes the work to be created” presupposes a degree of human control or creative input. In scenarios where AI systems function autonomously, it becomes difficult to determine whether the programmer, the user, or any other entity can legitimately claim authorship.[3] The absence of judicial guidance in India further exacerbates this uncertainty.
ORIGINALITY AND THE ‘MODICUM OF CREATIVITY’ STANDARD
The requirement of originality continues to be central to copyright protection. In Eastern Book Company v D.B. Modak, the Supreme Court clarified that protection is contingent upon the presence of a minimum degree of creativity rather than mere effort.[4] This standard rejects purely mechanical or trivial efforts.
Applying this principle to AI-generated works presents conceptual challenges. Since AI operates on pre-existing data and algorithmic processes, the originality of its output is questionable. While the output may appear novel, it lacks the human intellectual input traditionally required by copyright law.[5] This creates uncertainty regarding whether such outputs can meet the originality threshold recognised under Indian copyright law.
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
Across jurisdictions, approaches to AI-generated works vary. In the United Kingdom, statutory law acknowledges computer-generated works and assigns authorship to the person responsible for making the necessary arrangements.[6] By contrast, the United States adopts a stricter position[7], requiring clear human authorship and refusing protection where such involvement is absent.[8]
India currently occupies an uncertain position, lacking explicit statutory provisions or authoritative judicial pronouncements on the issue.[9] This absence of clarity creates challenges for both creators and rights holders operating in the digital environment.
CHALLENGES IN DETERMINING OWNERSHIP
The integration of AI into the creative process introduces several legal challenges. The lack of a clearly identifiable human creator weakens the very foundation on which copyright protection is built. The growing use of AI in creative processes gives rise to several legal concerns. Most notably, the absence of a clearly identifiable human creator challenges the very foundation of copyright law. Additionally, the presence of multiple contributors—such as developers, users, and data providers—makes it difficult to determine ownership with precision.[10]
Additionally, extending copyright protection to AI-generated works risks overprotection. Entities controlling advanced AI systems may accumulate disproportionate control over creative outputs, potentially stifling competition and innovation.[11] The lack of clarity regarding ownership also creates practical difficulties in enforcement and dispute resolution.
THE NEED FOR A NUANCED LEGAL APPROACH
Given these concerns, it becomes necessary to reassess how copyright law applies to AI-generated outputs. One possible approach is to continue prioritising human creativity by limiting protection to works involving meaningful human contribution. Alternatively, ownership could be attributed to the individual who operates or directs the AI system, although this may not fully capture the nature of creative input.[12]
Another viable solution is the development of a sui generis legal framework tailored specifically to AI-generated works. Such a framework could provide limited protection while ensuring that innovation and public access are not unduly restricted. Some scholars also advocate for placing AI-generated works in the public domain to prevent monopolisation and promote accessibility.[13]
CONCLUSION
AI-generated works pose a substantial challenge to established principles of copyright law, particularly in relation to authorship and originality. The current Indian legal framework, which is centred on human creativity, does not adequately address the complexities introduced by autonomous systems.
Although existing provisions allow some interpretative flexibility, they fall short of offering a complete solution. As AI technology continues to advance, legal frameworks must evolve accordingly to balance innovation with the protection of creative rights. Until such developments occur, AI-generated works will remain situated within an uncertain legal landscape.
Author(s) Name: Ashmita Thapa (Surendranath Law College, University of Calcutta)
References:
[1] World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence (2020).
[2] Copyright Act,1957, s 2(d).
[3] Dev Gangjee, ‘Creativity, Machine Learning and Copyright’ (2019) 81Modern Law Review 131.
[4] Eastern Book Company v D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1.
[5] Jani McCutcheon, ‘The Vanishing Author in Computer-Generated Works’ (2013) 23 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 915.
[6] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK), s 9(3).
[7] US Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing AI-Generated Material (2023).
[8] Naruto v Slater 888 F 3d 418 (9th Cir 2018)
[9] Shamnad Basheer, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law in India’ (2021) National Law School of India Review 45.
[10] Andres Guadamuz, ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Copyright?’ (2017) WIPO Magazine.
[11] Pamela Samuelson, ‘Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works’ (1986) 47 U Pitt L Rev 1185.
[12] Annemarie Bridy, ‘Coding Creativity: Copyright and the Artificially Intelligent Author’ (2012) 5 Stanford Technology Law Review.
[13] Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law (CUP 2020).