INTRODUCTION
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has transformed creative industries worldwide, raising fundamental questions about authorship, ownership, and protection of intellectual property. Tools like Midjourney, DALL-E, ChatGPT, and Suno.ai can now generate high-quality text, images, music, and videos within seconds, blurring the lines between human and machine creation.[1]
In India, the copyright regime is primarily governed by the Copyright Act, 1957, which grants protection to original literary, artistic, dramatic, and musical works. However, the Act is silent on the legal status of content entirely or substantially generated by AI. This legislative vacuum has created significant uncertainty regarding ownership of AI-generated works, liability for infringement, and the rights of human creators whose works are used to train AI models.[2] The issue gained prominence after several high-profile global disputes, such as Getty Images v Stability AI and the New York Times lawsuit against OpenAI.[3] In India too, concerns are mounting in the music, publishing, and visual arts sectors, where AI-generated content is increasingly competing with human creators. The absence of clear rules not only discourages innovation but also exposes creators to exploitation and legal risks.
This blog analyses the emerging challenges posed by AI-generated content to the existing copyright framework in India. It examines the current legal position, key judicial trends, and practical difficulties faced by stakeholders and argues for the urgent need for specific legislation to address these issues in a balanced manner that promotes both technological progress and protection of human creativity.
UNDERSTANDING AI-GENERATED CONTENT AND COPYRIGHT
Artificial intelligence has revolutionised content creation by enabling machines to produce original-looking works with minimal human intervention. AI tools can be broadly classified into generative AI systems that create new content based on patterns learned from vast training datasets. Prominent examples include text generators like ChatGPT, image creators such as Midjourney and DALL-E, music generators like Suno and Udio, and video tools like Sora.
Copyright law traditionally protects original works created by human authors. Under the Berne Convention and most national laws, including India’s Copyright Act, 1957, originality is linked to human creativity and intellectual effort. The central question arising with AI-generated content is whether such works qualify for copyright protection and, if so, who owns the rights: the user prompting the AI, the developer of the AI model, or no one at all.[4] In many jurisdictions, courts and copyright offices have taken the view that purely AI-generated content without sufficient human creative input does not qualify for copyright protection.[5] For instance, the US Copyright Office has repeatedly denied registration to works created solely by AI, emphasising the need for human authorship. Similar debates are emerging in India, where the Copyright Act does not explicitly address AI-generated works.
The issue becomes more complex when AI is used as a tool rather than the sole creator. If a human provides substantial creative input such as detailed prompts, editing, or modification, the resulting work may qualify for protection. However, the exact threshold of human contribution required remains unclear under Indian law. This legal ambiguity creates significant challenges for creators, platforms, and rights holders, especially as AI-generated content floods creative markets like music, literature, and visual arts.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN INDIA
The copyright regime in India is primarily governed by the Copyright Act, 1957.[6] Section 13 of the Act provides protection to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. Section 2(d) defines the author as the person who creates the work. However, the Act does not contain any specific provisions dealing with artificial intelligence or AI-generated content.
Indian courts have traditionally emphasised the requirement of human authorship and originality. In cases such as University of London Press Ltd v. University Tutorial Press Ltd, the courts have held that originality requires the exercise of skill, labour, and judgement.[7] This position creates a significant challenge for AI-generated works, as purely machine-generated content may not satisfy the human authorship criterion.
The Copyright Office in India has also not issued any formal guidelines or circulars regarding registration of AI-generated works. In practice, when applications involving AI are filed, examiners often seek clarification on the extent of human involvement. This ad-hoc approach has resulted in inconsistency and uncertainty.
Furthermore, issues relating to infringement are equally complex. When AI models are trained on copyrighted works without authorisation, questions arise regarding whether such use constitutes fair dealing under Section 52 of the Copyright Act. The Act’s fair dealing provisions were not drafted keeping in mind large-scale data scraping for AI training.
India’s obligations under international treaties such as the Berne Convention and TRIPS Agreement further complicate the situation, as there is growing global pressure to harmonise AI and copyright laws.
The current legal framework, therefore, remains ill-equipped to deal with the realities of generative AI, creating a pressing need for legislative intervention.
KEY CHALLENGES AND ISSUES
The emergence of AI-generated content has introduced several complex challenges to the existing copyright ecosystem in India.
The foremost issue is ownership and authorship. When an AI system generates content, it is unclear who owns the copyright: the user who provided the prompt, the developer of the AI model, or whether the work falls into the public domain. This ambiguity discourages investment in AI-assisted creativity and creates disputes over commercial exploitation of such works.
Another major concern is infringement and training data. Generative AI models are trained on massive datasets scraped from the internet, often containing copyrighted material without permission. This raises serious questions about whether such use amounts to copyright infringement. Indian law’s fair dealing exceptions under Section 52 may not adequately cover large-scale commercial training of AI models.
The moral rights of original creators are also at risk. AI-generated works that imitate the style of famous artists, musicians, or writers can dilute their reputation and economic rights. Deepfakes and synthetic media further complicate the issue by enabling misinformation, defamation, and violation of personality rights.
In the creative industries, particularly music, visual arts, and publishing, AI-generated content is increasingly competing with human creators, leading to concerns about job displacement and market saturation. The lack of transparency regarding AI usage in content creation also makes it difficult for platforms and consumers to distinguish between human and machine-generated works.
These challenges highlight the inadequacy of the Copyright Act, 1957, which was enacted long before the advent of generative AI. Without specific legislation, India risks falling behind global standards while failing to protect both human creators and technological innovation.
JUDICIAL RESPONSE AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Indian courts have begun grappling with the intersection of AI and copyright law, though the jurisprudence remains nascent. In the absence of specific legislation, judges are interpreting existing provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, on a case-by-case basis.
The Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court have handled cases involving AI-generated content, particularly in the context of deepfakes and unauthorised use of copyrighted material for training AI models. Courts have shown willingness to grant interim injunctions where AI tools are used to blatantly copy or imitate protected works.
Internationally, landmark cases such as Getty Images v Stability AI (UK) and The New York Times v Microsoft & OpenAI (US) have influenced Indian legal thinking.[8] These cases highlight the tension between innovation and copyright protection, especially regarding the use of protected works as training data.
In India, the Supreme Court and High Courts have repeatedly emphasised the need to balance technological advancement with the protection of intellectual property rights. However, courts have also noted that the current statutory framework is insufficient to address the unique challenges posed by generative AI.
As of 2026, several petitions and disputes relating to AI-generated content are pending before various forums. The judiciary has consistently urged the legislature to enact specific laws to provide clarity on authorship, ownership, liability, and fair use in the AI context.
CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD
The advent of generative artificial intelligence has fundamentally disrupted traditional notions of copyright, authorship, and creativity. While India’s Copyright Act, 1957, has served well for decades, it is increasingly inadequate to address the complex legal issues arising from AI-generated content. The lack of clarity on ownership, infringement through training data, moral rights, and liability poses serious challenges for creators, innovators, and the legal system.
The current legislative vacuum not only creates uncertainty but also risks stifling both human creativity and technological progress. Without timely intervention, India may lag behind global jurisdictions that are actively formulating AI-specific copyright rules, such as the European Union’s AI Act and Copyright Directive amendments.[9]
Comprehensive specific legislation on AI and copyright is urgently needed. The new law should address the following key aspects:
- Clear criteria for determining authorship and ownership of AI-generated or AI-assisted works based on the degree of human creative input.
- Guidelines on the use of copyrighted material for training AI models, including provisions for licensing, fair use, and opt-out mechanisms.
- Protection of moral rights of human creators against unauthorised style imitation and deepfakes.
- Establishment of a regulatory framework for transparency in AI-generated content labelling.
- Balanced approach that promotes innovation while safeguarding the economic interests of human creators.
Until dedicated legislation is enacted, the Copyright Office should issue detailed guidelines, and courts should continue developing nuanced jurisprudence. India has a unique opportunity to craft a forward-looking legal framework that positions it as a responsible leader in the Global South’s AI governance.
The future of creativity lies in harmonious coexistence between human ingenuity and artificial intelligence. Specific legislation is not just a legal necessity; it is essential for fostering sustainable innovation in the creative economy.
Author(s) Name: Vaishnavi Karape (Savitribai Phule Pune University)
References:
[1] ‘WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property and Frontier Technologies’ (World Intellectual Property Organization, 29 October 2025) <https://www.wipo.int/en/web/frontier-technologies/frontier_conversation> accessed 02 June 2026
[2] Copyright Act 1957
[3] Getty Images (US) Inc v Stability AI Ltd [2023] EWHC 38 (Ch); The New York Times Co v Microsoft Corp et al No 1:2023cv11195 (SDNY 2024)
[4] Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (adopted 9 September 1886, last revised 28 September 1979) 1161 UNTS 3
[5] ‘Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence’ (Federal Register, 16 March 2023) <https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence> accessed 02 June 2026
[6] Copyright Act 1957, ss 2(d), 13
[7] University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601
[8] Getty Images (US) Inc v Stability AI Ltd [2023] EWHC 38 (Ch); The New York Times Co v Microsoft Corp et al No 1:2023cv11195 (SDNY 2024)
[9] EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024; Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC [2019] OJ L 130