INTRODUCTION TO COPYRIGHT
‘The term “copyright” reportedly originated in 1586 from “copier,” denoting exclusive rights over intellectual works[1]. According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, Copyright refers to the sole right of the owner of an intellectual work to make, distribute, and dispose of copies. In the Indian context, Section 14[2] of the Copyright Act, of 1957 defines copyright. Its scope is wide enough to include not only artistic or literary works but also other kinds of works like dramatic, musical, cinematographic, architecture, etc.-. Since the subject matter of copyright is the intellectual labour of a person, it can be conferred that the right of ‘copyright’ is a right to the “intellectual property” of a person. The creator or the copyright holder has full control over his work, and he has the freedom to use his work as he desires. The ruling in M/S. Bharat Law House v. M/S. Wadhwa & Co. Pvt. Ltd and Ors[3] established that “copyright is the exclusive right to do and to authorise others to do and restrain others from doing certain acts about a literary work.”[4]
OVERVIEW OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Even though there are copyrights over the intellectual works of the creators, these rights are breached or violated many times. Such breach or violation is known as “Copyright Infringement”. It occurs when a piece of work is modified, copied or distributed without the prior permission of its creator, thereby tangling with his rights over the creation and the potential to benefit from it. In essence, copyright infringement involves the unauthorized use of another’s copyrighted work. With time, the creation, distribution and reproduction of literary, artistic or any other intellectual labour has been evolving, making copyright infringement a significant, ethical, legal or moral concern. As the core of intellectual property rights revolves around the fact that the mental labour of a creator should be rewarded, the issue of copyright infringement scars this motive. The Kerala High Court, in the case of K.I. George v. C. Cheriyan[5]observed that “a copyright shall be deemed to be infringed when any person does anything, the exclusive right to do which is conferred upon the copyright owner.”[6]
LEGAL PRECEDENTS OF AI-GENERATED CONTENT IN COPYRIGHT LAW
Technological advancements in the past decade, especially the introduction of AI, have posed a significant challenge in the realm of copyright in India and around the globe. The discourse regarding ownership or authorship of AI-generated work remains a vital question of the law. The influence of generative AI technologies has ignited considerable discourse among legal, technological, and creative sectors as stakeholders contend with evolving definitions of authorship and originality.
The U.S. Copyright Office, recently in ‘Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter’[7], stated that works of generative AI are not copyrightable.
Similarly, the Indian law also reflects similar jurisprudence as it defines the ‘author of a computer-generated work’ as the individual who causes the work to be created, primarily indicating human participation[8].
Section 9(3) of the United Kingdom’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 states that, “In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken”[9]
Therefore, it might be argued that substantial human involvement is required to claim ownership of computer-generated information as well.
AMBIGUITIES IN THE CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The current status of the copyright law outpaced by emerging technologies can be well understood by the comments of Judge B.A. Howell:
“Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used to generate new visual and other artistic works. The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary to qualify the user of an AI system as an “author” of a generated work, the scope of the protection obtained over the resultant image, how to assess the originality of AI-generated works where the systems may have been trained on unknown pre-existing works, how copyright might best be used to incentivize creative works involving AI, and more.”[10]
The ambiguity regarding the authorship of AI-generated content can also be seen in a recent case involving the Indian Copyright Office initially acknowledging AI system RAGHAV as a co-author with the human developer of the artwork titled ‘SURYAST’, whereas later issuing a withdrawal notice. The developer claimed copyright as he gave directions to the AI system, which involves sufficient human intervention. However, the claim was rejected by the Indian Copyright Office.
Similar to this, several jurisdictions, including Australia[11], the United Kingdom[12], the United States, New Zealand[13], and the European Patent Office[14], have denied Stephen Thaler’s requests to patent inventions developed by his AI system, “DABUS” (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), because their legal frameworks only recognise natural persons as eligible inventors in patent applications, and thus do not allow an AI system to be recognised as an inventor.
NEED FOR LEGAL FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT: PRESENT AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The current trends highlight the importance of developing a legal framework for scrutinizing AI-generated artwork and the question regarding its authorship. The Parliamentary Standing Committee[15] has acknowledged the need for more explicit regulations for the ownership and protection of Intellectual Property Rights due to the advancement of AI in the 21st century. The current copyright framework of India lacks adequate provisions concerning authorship of AI-related artwork. Due to the heavy dependence of the creative industries in India on intellectual property, fields like music and cinema are particularly affected, creating great uncertainty for the creators in these fields.
India’s National IPR Policy of 2016 makes a remarkable commitment to strengthen the country’s IPR laws. Under this polity, the government came up with Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2021[16], a key legal initiative for administering online content and safeguarding rights. The regulation aims to enhance punishment for IPR violations and further strengthen the intermediaries’ ability to regulate online content. However, the question of ownership of AI-generated content remains unanswered.
The growth of AI technology and the future of copyright law in India strongly require re-evaluating core principles, mainly authorship and ownership. The rise in AI is blurring the lines between human and machine creativity, e.g. AI tools like OpenAI’s Jukedeck and Amper Music can analyze existing music compositions and generate melodies. Such technology can be used to create music in Bollywood, etc. The lacunae regarding the copyright of such works demand immediate attention. To enhance the existing legal framework, the lawmakers and judicial authorities must come up with the creators, integrators, and digital technology experts.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, India must focus on an all-inclusive and adaptable legislative approach to navigate the rapidly changing realm of copyright law and its relationship with evolving technology. One such step could be to amend the definition of the term ‘author’ under s. 2(d) of the Copyright Act[17] to clarify AI authorship. The Indian Legislature must foster a direction where it takes into consideration both the efforts of the creators as well as the digital advancement in the field of AI. ‘Amending the Copyright Act to address AI-related issues is imperative. This requires a collective effort that involves engaging with various stakeholders to ensure that the copyright legislation adequately protects all the creators while promoting innovation in an increasingly digitally advanced environment.
Authors Name: Navya Chadha and Vibhor Kathuria (NLU Shimla)
References:
[1] Dr. B.L. Wadehra, Law Relating to Intellectual Property, 4th edn. (Delhi: Universal Law Publication)
[2] Copyright Act, 1957 (India) s.14
[3] ‘M/S Bharat Law House v M/S Wadhwa & Co Pvt Ltd [1988] INSC 12
[4] ‘M/S Bharat Law House v M/S Wadhwa & Co Pvt Ltd [1988] INSC 12
[5] ‘K.I. George v C. Cheriyan [1986] Ker HC 12
[6] ‘K.I. George v C. Cheriyan [1986] Ker HC 12
[7] Thaler v. Perlmutter, 1:22-cv-01564 (D.D.C. 2023)
[8] Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 2(d)(vi)
[9] ‘Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK), s 9(3).
[10] Thaler v. Perlmutter, 1:22-cv-01564 (D.D.C. 2023) per B.A. Howell, J.
[11] Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 at [189]
[12] Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Design and Trademark [2023] UKSC 49
[13] Stephen Lee Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents [2023] NZHC 554
[14] EPO Legal Board of Appeal decisions J 8/20 and J 9/20
[15] ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, Review of IPR Regime in India (Report No. 161, 23 July 2021).
[16] ‘Copyright (Amendment) Rules 2021 (India), notified 30 March 2021
[17] Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 2(d)
