The Copyright Crisis Rewriting Creative Industries in India 

ABSTRACT

The rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence has created an unprecedented copyright crisis in India’s creative industries. This blog examines the growing conflict between AI-generated art and India’s existing legal framework, centred on the Copyright Act of 1957, a legislation built long before machines could create paintings, compose music, or write novels. With no explicit provisions for AI authorship or ownership, India currently offers no copyright protection for AI-generated works, leaving creators legally vulnerable. Drawing on landmark developments including the ANI Media vs OpenAI case in the Delhi High Court, the government’s formation of an eight-member expert panel in May 2025 to modernise copyright law, and the DPIIT’s rejection of blanket fair use defences for commercial AI training, the blog traces India’s cautious but evolving legal response. It also highlights the critical issue of training data millions of Indian artists’ works scraped without consent and compares India’s position with progressive global frameworks like the EU AI Act and the Munich court’s 2025 ruling in favour of music rights body GEMA. The blog argues that India, with its vast creative economy spanning Bollywood, music, publishing, and visual arts, must urgently introduce targeted legislative reform including a proposed new chapter in the Copyright Act specifically addressing AI-generated works to protect its creative community while enabling responsible AI innovation.

INTRODUCTION 

The difficulty with answering that question is that there is no easy way. It can generate paintings and music, compose articles and design logos. Tools such as ChatGPT, Midjourney, DALLE and Stable Diffusion powered by AI have made creation simple and available to any internet and computer user. However, their legal consequences have presented a massive legal quandary. Whose work is the AI’s work?

There is no easy answer to this question. Copyright law as it was conceived did not take into account machine creativity in its entirety as machines and only humans could be the author and creator. However with the increase in AI generation the questions surrounding human ownership of works created by machines have become ever prominent in India, where the law of copyright is heavily hinged on human creativity, in light of the ongoing debate among various stakeholders including artists, legal professionals, government and technology corporations.

UNDERSTANDING COPYRIGHT AND AUTHORSHIP

Copyright is the exclusive right given to authors of original literary, artistic, musical, dramatic works that authorizes reproduction of their works, distribution of those copies, and commercial exploitation of the same. For this, Copyright Act, 1957 is the general provision under which copyright is given to a work made by a human being. The basis of copyright protection is authorship because a right is granted on the basis of effort, intellectual labor and skill applied by a person. However the problem arises in the case of content created by artificial intelligence. Where there is a piece of work which does not have much human intervention is produced by a software and artificial intelligence system, where can we locate an “author”? Since an artificial intelligence is not a legal person and is also not capable of owning property, then ownership cannot be attributed to any specific person.

THE RISE OF AI GENERATED ART

In a nutshell, AI art generators analyze a vast database of millions of paintings, images, photographs and illustrations. Through algorithms the AI’s learn to find relationships between various aspects of the images and generate new images on user prompt.

So a user gives prompt like “futuristic city, based on Indian architecture and architecture at sunset,” and the AI makes the artwork based on it. Although the user is the guiding hand to create the image but the artwork is generated by the AI itself.

There are many question, such as:

1. Whether the user is the author as he gives the prompt?
2. Is the company, which develops the AI, responsible for the output?
3. Whether the artwork created should be in public domain?
4. What to do if the generated artwork is similar to already copyrighted work?

Such problems have already resulted in a worldwide copyright crisis which is knocking at India’s doors too.

INDIA’S LEGAL POSITON ON AI-GENERATED WORKS 

There are no explicit laws governing AI-generated content in India. However, there is a curious provision in the Copyright Act.

Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act reads as follows, ‘in relation to any work, the author shall be (vi) in the case of any work made by a computer, be the person who causes the work to be made’. This provision was put in place before the advent of current AI tools and was meant for computer-assisted work.

Some lawyers opine that it might be used to address AI generated art. In such a scenario the individual who inputs the prompt and initiates the work might be the author, and some other may say it would be the author that created the AI. The issue remains to be judicially determined in India.

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS AND THEIR INFLUENCE 

Many countries are already coming up with solutions for AI copyright issues.

In the United States, Copyright Office has maintained its position that a human author must have been involved for the creation of work for the work to be granted copyright protection. Works of “pure” AI cannot be copyrighted, while those that involve enough creativity from the human might be considered eligible for copyright protection.Similarly, various other jurisdictions have pointed out that copyright should serve to reward human creativity.

This could serve as a turning point for Indian authorities. Indian copyright law does have quite a few similarities with copyright law of other countries; perhaps that’s the direction the reforms are likely to take.

CHALLENGES FACING CREATIVE INDUSTRIES 

Many artists, designers, writers, and content creators have significant worries and issues due to the unclear future of AI generated artwork.

1. Concern to the Human Artist: Many artists worry that AI can be trained on the existing works of humans and can then copy the humans’ artistic style, which they can profit from, without the artists receiving any money or credit.
2. Ownership Concern: Brands and companies investing in the creation of new content for the purpose of advertising, brand image, and marketing are anxious as they are not sure about the copyright for what they are advertising or branding as there is a level of uncertainty.
3. Concerns about infringement: Because AI is trained on such vast amounts of data and a majority of it consists of human artwork, any similarities that the AI created artwork may have with existing artwork causes complications and further questions about blame.
4. The future of employment for creative professionals: While the creativity AI can produce is quite exciting, if these sophisticated pieces of AI created art are cheaper and more accessible then this could have a big effect on jobs.

THE NEED FOR LEGAL REFORM IN INDIA 

It is vital that Indian copyright law catches up with the real-life consequences of AI-generated creativity. Lawmakers could look at implementing a few reforms: First, a well-defined legal framework defining the ownership of AI generated works needs to be legislated. A lack of clarity will lead to uncertainty among creators, businesses and technology firms. 

There should be disclosure obligations around the training data used for the AI models. Artists must be made aware of if their works are being used for machine learning or not. Third, a system of licensing and remuneration needs to be developed. If the AI model uses copyrighted works in training, artists ought to be properly compensated. Lastly, India needs a framework that is pro-innovation but rights of human creators must be secured.

CONCLUSION 

AI generated art is one of the greatest challenges that copyright law has ever faced. As artificial intelligence takes a more active role in the creative process, long established notions of authorship and ownership are being challenged as never before. The Indian legal position, as it stands, creates an environment of uncertainty for artists, commercial ventures and developers of artificial intelligence.

The question of who is the author of a work created by AI generated art does not simply represent a legal debate; rather it poses questions regarding the nature of creativity and innovation, and the future of human expression. As artificial intelligence continues to play an increasingly important role in creative processes, India needs a progressive legal framework regarding copyright, which balances innovation and development with the rights of artists.

REFERENCES 

The Copyright Act, 1957 (India) – Section 2(d)(vi) regarding computer-generated works. 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) – AI and Intellectual Property 

Copyright Office, United States – Copyright Registration Guidance for AI-Generated Works 

Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Government of India 

Abbott, Ryan. The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law. Cambridge University Press. 

Samuelson, Pamela. “Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works.” University of Pittsburgh Law Review. 

WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence Reports.