Introduction

The Copyright Act, 1957 is the primary legislation in India governing the protection of original works in fields such as literature, music, art, cinematography, and sound recordings. The Act clearly distinguishes between authorship and ownership of intellectual property. An author is the person who creates an original work, while the owner is the individual or legal entity that holds the legal rights over that work. Ownership includes the right to commercially exploit the work, license it, or transfer it to third parties.

In many cases, the author and the owner may be the same person. However, there are situations where authorship and ownership vest in different individuals or entities, such as in employer employee relationships or commissioned works. With the rapid growth of artificial intelligence, this distinction has become increasingly complex, especially where works are generated using AI systems.

Copyright Law and the Concept of Authorship

Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines the term author. It includes authors of literary and dramatic works, composers of musical works, artists of artistic works, photographers, producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings, and importantly, in the case of computer generated literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works, the person who causes the work to be created.

Further, Section 13 of the Act lays down the conditions under which copyright subsists in a work. These provisions clarify who may claim copyright protection and the territorial nexus required for such protection.

A combined reading of these provisions indicates that Indian copyright law recognises only natural persons or legally recognised entities as authors and owners. The law does not contemplate artificial intelligence systems as authors. Consequently, an AI system cannot independently hold copyright or be recognised as the author of an intellectual property right.

International Perspective on AI and Inventorship

One of the most prominent international cases on AI inventorship is the DABUS case involving Dr Stephen Thaler. In October 2018, Dr Thaler filed patent applications in the United Kingdom for inventions titled Food Container and Devices and Methods for Attracting Enhanced Attention. In both applications, the inventor was named as DABUS, an artificial intelligence system developed by Dr Thaler.

The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office rejected the applications on the ground that only human beings can be recognised as inventors under the Patents Act, 1977. The decision was upheld by the High Court of England and Wales and subsequently by the Court of Appeal. The courts consistently held that an inventor must be a natural person and that ownership of a machine does not automatically confer inventorship or patent rights over inventions allegedly created by that machine.

These rulings clearly reinforce the principle that artificial intelligence lacks legal personality and therefore cannot hold or transfer intellectual property rights.

Policy Concerns and Emerging Challenges

As artificial intelligence continues to advance, legal disputes relating to AI generated works are expected to increase significantly. Most copyright statutes across the world, including the Indian Copyright Act, were enacted decades ago, at a time when AI generated creativity was not anticipated.

There is an increasing debate on whether the owner or developer of an AI system should be granted rights over outputs generated by such systems. Some scholars argue that principles analogous to vicarious liability or employer employee relationships could be applied, whereby the person controlling or deploying the AI system should benefit from the works produced under their direction.

However, in the absence of express legislative recognition, courts have largely refrained from extending authorship or ownership to AI generated outputs without human creativity.

India’s Position on AI Generated Works

The RAGHAV AI Case

In India, one of the earliest discussions around AI generated art arose from the work of Ankit Sahni, an artist and lawyer. In 2020, he created a painting titled Suryast using an AI tool known as RAGHAV. The artwork was generated based on instructions and input provided by him.

While initial recognition was granted, the legal position remained uncertain, particularly when similar claims were assessed internationally.

Position of the United States Copyright Office

The United States Copyright Office rejected copyright protection for works where the majority of creative input was attributed to an AI system. It held that copyright subsists only in works created by human authors. Despite arguments that the AI functioned merely as a tool and that human effort was involved, the applications were rejected, including on appeal in July 2023.

Comparative International Positions

Different countries have adopted varying approaches to AI generated works:

• The United States maintains that works generated by machines or artificial intelligence are not eligible for copyright protection.
• India initially showed openness but currently lacks a clear and settled legal position.
• Canada recognises joint human and AI involvement, allowing protection where sufficient human contribution exists.
• China allows copyright protection if humans exercise meaningful control over the AI during the creative process.
• Several European jurisdictions permit copyright where AI is used under human supervision and creative direction.

Indian Legal Framework and Existing Gaps

Indian copyright law is silent on the treatment of AI generated works. The Copyright Act emphasises human authorship and does not provide clarity on co authorship involving machines or autonomous systems. This legislative gap creates uncertainty for creators, businesses, and technology developers working with AI driven tools.

Conclusion

Every country has adopted its own approach to regulating intellectual property generated using artificial intelligence, based on technological maturity, economic priorities, and judicial interpretation. India continues to rely on the Copyright Act, 1957, which predates the emergence of artificial intelligence and does not adequately address modern technological realities.

There is an urgent need for legislative reform or authoritative judicial pronouncements to clarify the status of AI generated works in India. As artificial intelligence becomes more sophisticated, unresolved questions around authorship and ownership will only become more complex. Clear legal standards are essential to balance innovation, creativity, and the protection of intellectual property rights in the digital age.

About author:

Giridhar Dangi is a BBA LL.B. student at Ramaiah Institute of Legal Studies, Bangalore.