Introduction
The rapid development of artificial intelligence has notably modified the ecosystem of creativity and content generation. Tools designed to produce art, music, literature and even legal writing have begun to question conventional beliefs of ownership of works and originality. Unlike canonical works produced via human intelligence and diligence, AI-generated content is algorithmically generated and trained on massive datasets. This technological transformation gives rise to a pivotal legal question: whether such works can be protected under copyright law, and if so, who may be deemed the author?
Copyright law, across India and other jurisdictions, is primarily based on the creativity of the individual and intellectual labour. The emergence of AI-generated works disturbs this foundation by instituting a non-human entity into the creative production. This generates a doctrinal vacuum, as established legal frameworks are not equipped to resolve issues of authorship, ownership, and liability in such cases. It is contended that the present copyright laws strive to incorporate AI-generated works due to their dependence on authorship grounded in human agency, thereby demanding an urgent legal and policy response.[1]
Understanding Copyright and Human Authorship
Copyright law protects original works of authorship by granting exclusive rights to creators over their intellectual product. A fundamental requirement for copyright protection is originality, which conventionally comprises the application of skill, labour and judgement attributable to a human author.[2] Authorship is hence core to the entire structure of copyright law.
Under the Copyright Act, 1957, the term ‘author’ denotes the individual by whom the work is created. This interpretation is premised on the involvement of a human in the process of creation. Similarly, international copyright systems have invariably connected authorship with the creativity attributed to humans, strengthening the concept that intellectual effort must emerge from a natural person.[3]
Nevertheless, AI-generated works question this presumption. When a machine independently generates content, human creativity becomes limited or non-existent. This gives rise to a fundamental issue: whether a work lacking authorship attributable to a human can fulfil the requirements of originality and be eligible for copyright protection under applicable legal standards.[4]
The Core Issue: Identifying the Author
The key legal challenge encompassing AI-generated works lies in determining authorship. Numerous prospective claimants emerge, each introducing doctrinal challenges.
The algorithm designer of the AI mechanism may assert authorship based on the tool they created from which the work is derived. However, this argument is inaccurate because the developer fails to exercise operational control over the particular result produced by the AI. The process of creation, under these conditions, functions independently beyond the developer’s operational control.[5]
On the other hand, a user who contributes input to the AI system may claim ownership. While users facilitate the generation process, their role is often constrained to issuing instructions. Such input may not satisfy the threshold of originality essential for copyright protection, given its lack of adequate expression of creativity.[6]
The third approach is to acknowledge the AI itself as the author. This possibility, however, is legally unsustainable as AI lacks judicial personality under existing legal frameworks. These conflicting claims emphasize the insufficiency of current copyright principles in regulating AI-generated works.[7]
Global Legal Position
The legal characterization of AI-generated works is not uniform across jurisdictions, demonstrating the non-existence of a consistent approach.
In the United States, copyright protection makes human authorship essential. The US Copyright Office has invariably denied protection to works generated or created entirely by AI, highlighting that copyright laws are applicable only to human contributors.[8]
This position was strengthened in the landmark verdict of Naruto v. Slater, also known as the ‘Monkey Selfie Case’, where a photograph clicked by a non-human entity was deemed ineligible for copyright protection.[9]
By contrast, the United Kingdom embraces a less rigid approach. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 acknowledges AI-generated works and assigns authorship to the person who takes necessary measures for the generation of the work. While this provides a workable mechanism, it has been called into question for its vagueness and risk of overreach.[10]
These diverse strategies demonstrate the absence of international consensus. While some authorities maintain rigid compliance with authorship by a human, others embrace practical frameworks to resolve technological advancements.[11]
The Indian Legal Position
The Indian legal structure does not specifically address AI-generated works, leading to notable ambiguity. The Copyright Act, 1957 is based on human involvement and does not consider non-human creators.[12]
Indian courts have conventionally followed the ‘threshold of creativity’ criterion, which requires a minimal intellectual contribution to fulfil the conditions of originality.[13] In respect of AI-generated content, deciding whether this condition is fulfilled becomes formidable, especially when involvement of a human is minimal.
One possible solution is to assign authorship to the user or developer, relying on the extent of control exercised. However, this perspective lacks doctrinal coherence and may result in contradictory results. The non-existence of judicial precedent further intensifies indeterminacy and raises operational challenges for creators and businesses.[14]
Policy Concerns and Implications
The rise of AI-generated works gives rise to notable policy issues that transcend legal doctrine.
Permitting copyright protection to such works could result in over-protection, facilitating corporations to dominate AI-generated content. This could limit access to creative resources and restrict competition. On the contrary, rejecting protection could entirely deter investments in AI technologies, as developers and users may have no inducement to innovate.[15]
In addition, AI-generated content creates an obstacle to human creators, who could be obligated to compete with mechanisms capable of producing content skilfully on a large scale. This gives rise to ethical questions concerning the essence of creativity and the significance of human effort in the digital era. Balancing these conflicting factors is necessary to ensure that copyright law encourages sustained innovation.[16]
Way Forward
There is an immediate need for statutory reform to tackle the challenges raised by AI-generated works. An alternative approach is to embrace a hybrid model that acknowledges the combined efforts of developers and users, while preserving the fundamental role of human involvement.[17]
Alternatively, a unique framework may be introduced to provide restricted protection to AI-generated works without comparing them to conventional copyright works. This would ensure that innovation is promoted while shielding the rights of human creators. Unambiguous regulatory guidelines are essential to guarantee legal security.[18]
Conclusion
AI-generated works pose a fundamental challenge to traditional copyright law, which is embedded in authorship by humans. The inability of current frameworks to tackle issues of ownership and originality has given rise to a legal lacuna, resulting in instability and unpredictability.[19]
In India, the non-existence of specific provisions further adds complexity to the issue, emphasizing the necessity of reform. Eventually, copyright law must maintain a balance in safeguarding human creativity and promoting technological innovation in the evolving digital ecosystem.[20]
Author(s) Name: Yashika Datta Wadke (Hindi Vidya Prachar Samiti’s College of Law, Mumbai)
References:
[1] Bently L and Sherman B, Intellectual Property Law (5th edn, OUP 2014) 45
[2] P Narayanan, Copyright Law (3rd edn, Eastern Book Company 2016) 72
[3] WIPO, Copyright Basics https://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/� accessed 25 March 2026
[4] Samuelson P, ‘Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works’ (1995) 29 Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & Arts 1
[5] Hirtle P, ‘Who Owns the Copyright in Computer-Generated Works?’ (Cornell University Library, 2007) https://digitalcommons.law.cornell.edu/� accessed 25 March 2026
[6] O’Brien D, ‘Authorship and AI: The Legal Perspective’ (2019) 34 European Intellectual Property Review 155
[7] Ginsburg J, ‘The Concept of Authorship in Copyright Law’ (2012) 60 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 301
[8] US Copyright Office, ‘Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices’ (3rd edn, 2021) s 313.2
[9] Naruto v Slater 888 F3d 418 (9th Cir 2018)
[10] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 9(3) (UK)
[11] Crews K, ‘Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Comparative Perspectives’ (2019) 41 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 1
[12] Copyright Act, 1957 (India) s 2(d)
[13] Eastern Book Company v D B Modak (2008) 7 SCC 627
[14] P Narayanan (n 2) 90
[15] Samuelson P (n 4) 10
[16] O’Brien D (n 6) 157
[17] Ginsburg J (n 7) 310
[18] Crews K (n 11) 12
[19] Hirtle P (n 5) 5
[20] WIPO (n 3)