COPYRIGHT IN THE AGE OF GENERATIVE AI

Juhi Bhutoria

Saveetha School of Law, SIMATS

REASSESSING AUTHORSHIP AND OWNERSHIP OF AI-GENERATED WORKS

Abstract

The emergence of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has significantly transformed the creative landscape, allowing machines to produce artworks, music, literary pieces, and digital content with minimal human intervention. While this technological advancement has opened new possibilities for innovation, it has also created legal uncertainty in copyright law, particularly concerning authorship and ownership. Since traditional copyright frameworks were developed around the assumption of human creativity, the increasing role of AI challenges existing legal principles. This blog examines the copyright implications of AI-generated works, analyses the position under Indian law, and evaluates whether current legal systems are adequately equipped to address the growing intersection between artificial intelligence and creativity.

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence has rapidly become an inseparable part of everyday life. What initially appeared as an advanced technological experiment is now actively shaping industries ranging from healthcare and finance to entertainment and content creation. In recent years, AI-powered tools such as ChatGPT, Midjourney, DALL·E, Stable Diffusion, and Gemini have gained immense popularity for their ability to create poems, paintings, photographs, scripts, advertisements, and even legal drafts within seconds.

While this technological development has made creative production more efficient and accessible, it has simultaneously triggered a significant legal debate: who owns content created by Artificial Intelligence?

Traditionally, copyright law has been based on the belief that creativity originates from human skill, labour, and intellectual effort. However, in situations where a machine independently generates content, applying traditional copyright principles becomes increasingly difficult. Questions concerning authorship, originality, ownership, and liability now challenge the effectiveness of existing copyright frameworks. As AI-generated content becomes commercially valuable, copyright law must evolve to address concerns that were never contemplated when these laws were originally drafted.

Copyright Law and the Requirement of Human Authorship

The primary purpose of copyright law is to protect original expressions of creativity and encourage innovation. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright protection extends to original literary, artistic, musical, dramatic, and cinematographic works.

A close reading of the Act makes one thing evident—it presumes the involvement of a human creator. Section 2(d) identifies authors based on the nature of the work, whether it is a writer, composer, photographer, or artist. The framework of copyright law is therefore deeply rooted in the idea of human creativity. This becomes problematic in the context of generative AI.

Suppose an individual enters a simple prompt into an AI software and receives a sophisticated digital painting or article as output. Can the person who merely entered the prompt be considered the author? Alternatively, should ownership belong to the developer who created the AI model? Or should such works remain outside copyright protection altogether?

These questions highlight a growing legal vacuum in copyright law.

The Debate Around Originality and AI-Created Works

One of the biggest challenges concerning AI-generated content relates to the requirement of originality. Traditionally, originality in copyright law is linked with intellectual effort, judgment, and skill. Indian courts have consistently upheld this position. In Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, the Supreme Court recognised that copyright exists where sufficient skill and judgment are exercised in creating a work. However, where AI independently produces content without substantial human involvement, identifying the required intellectual contribution becomes difficult.

This debate has already become prominent internationally. In the United States, authorities have refused copyright registration for works generated entirely by AI, emphasising that copyright law protects only human authorship. The U.S. Copyright Office has repeatedly clarified that purely machine-generated outputs fall outside copyright protection.

In contrast, the United Kingdom adopts a comparatively flexible approach. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, copyright in computer-generated works may belong to the person who undertakes the arrangements necessary for creating the work.

These differing international approaches demonstrate the lack of global consensus regarding AI-generated creativity.

India’s Position: A Legal Grey Area

India currently lacks a dedicated legal framework addressing copyright in AI-generated works. Since the Copyright Act, 1957 predates modern AI technologies, the legislation offers little guidance on questions of machine authorship.

At present, Indian law indirectly favours human involvement. Courts have repeatedly recognised human skill and creative input as central to copyright protection. This creates uncertainty regarding works generated almost entirely by AI systems. For example, if an AI platform autonomously creates a song or digital artwork that becomes commercially successful, determining ownership may become highly contentious.

Possible claimants may include:

The user operating the AI system;
The software developer;
The company owning the AI platform; or
Collaborative ownership between stakeholders.

Without legislative clarity, disputes involving AI-generated content are likely to increase significantly in the coming years.

Another major issue concerns copyright infringement. Many AI systems are trained on vast amounts of copyrighted material collected from books, artworks, websites, and databases. Critics argue that if copyrighted works are used without permission for AI training, creators’ rights may be violated. Several lawsuits against AI companies internationally already revolve around allegations of unauthorised use of copyrighted material for training datasets.

Need for Legal Reform

The increasing role of AI in creative industries highlights the urgent need for legal reform. Completely denying copyright protection to AI-assisted works may discourage innovation and investment. However, granting unrestricted protection could undermine the importance of human creativity and potentially lead to unfair monopolies. A balanced approach appears necessary.

Rather than recognising AI as an independent legal author, lawmakers may consider focusing on the degree of human involvement in the creative process. Where substantial human creativity and decision-making exist, copyright protection may continue to apply. Conversely, purely autonomous outputs may require separate legal treatment.

India may also benefit from introducing specific provisions clarifying ownership, liability, and originality standards concerning AI-generated content.

Conclusion

Generative AI has fundamentally reshaped the meaning of creativity in the digital age. While machines are now capable of producing commercially valuable artistic and literary works, copyright law remains largely centred around human authorship.

India’s current copyright framework offers limited clarity regarding ownership and originality in AI-generated works, leaving courts and policymakers with difficult questions. As technology continues to advance, relying solely on traditional interpretations may no longer be sufficient.

Ultimately, the future of copyright law will depend upon striking a balance between encouraging technological progress and safeguarding human creativity. The challenge is not whether AI can create it clearly can but whether copyright law is prepared to regulate a world where creativity is increasingly shared between humans and intelligent machines.

References

The Copyright Act, 1957 (India).

Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1.

U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence (2023).

WIPO, Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy (2024), available at: https://www.wipo.int

Abbott, R. (2020). The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law. Cambridge University Press.