Copyright in AI-Generated Content under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957

Exploring the Legal Gaps and Future of Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law in India 

Introduction

In an era defined by artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and automation, creative

content is increasingly being generated by machines with little to no human input. From text

and images to music and video, AI tools such as ChatGPT, DALL·E, and MidJourney are

transforming how content is produced. But this seismic shift has raised a key legal question in

India and globally: Can AI-generated content be protected under copyright law, and if so, who

is the rightful owner?

This blog post delves into this question from an Indian legal perspective, focusing on how the

Indian Copyright Act, 1957 deals with AI-generated works. We also explore comparative

international practices and the ongoing discourse around legal reforms.

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957: Overview and Applicability

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 is a comprehensive legislation that governs the protection of

literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, as well as cinematograph films and sound

recordings. For any work to be copyrightable in India, it must satisfy two key criteria: 

1. It must fall under one of the protected categories listed in Section 13(1)

2. It must be "original" and possess minimal creativity

The Act also defines the term "author" under Section 2(d), which varies depending on the type

of work. However, the current law primarily contemplates human authorship, posing a

significant challenge when it comes to machine-generated content.

 

The Legal Dilemma: Can AI Be an Author?

Under the Copyright Act, authorship is a prerequisite for ownership. Section 2(d)(vi) of the Act

makes a rare mention of computer-generated works, stating that the author shall be the “person

who causes the work to be created.” But who exactly is that "person" in the context of

generative AI?

Is it:

 The developer who created the AI model?

 The user who provided the prompt?

 The person who trained the AI using specific datasets?

This ambiguity makes it difficult to establish a clear line of authorship for AI-generated works.

 

No Recognition for AI as Legal Personhood

India does not currently recognize AI as a legal person. Unlike human authors, AI cannot hold

rights, exercise moral control over its creations, or be held accountable. Therefore, only human

beings or legal entities can be considered authors or owners of copyright under Indian law.

 

The Concept of Originality and AI-Generated Works

For a work to qualify for copyright protection, it must exhibit "originality"—meaning it must

be independently created and possess a minimal degree of creativity. The Supreme Court of

India has clarified that originality does not require novelty but must be more than mere trivial

or mechanical effort. 

AI-generated works challenge this understanding. While the output may be creative and

unique, if no human creativity or editorial judgment is involved, the work may not meet the

originality threshold. This raises fundamental questions:

 Can a machine’s probabilistic output be considered "creative"?

 If yes, does that dilute the human-centric concept of originality?

Current Legal Position in India

While Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act recognizes computer-generated works, the term

lacks adequate definition and legal clarity. India's IP office has been inconsistent in granting 

and revoking rights to such works. A notable example is the "RAGHAV" case, where an AI-

generated painting was first granted copyright but later retracted, highlighting the need for

more robust legal guidelines.

The Government of India, in its submissions to WIPO (World Intellectual Property

Organization), has stated that the existing copyright framework is "well-equipped" to handle

AI-related challenges. However, the ground reality suggests otherwise. Uncertainty and

inconsistent application remain major hurdles for creators and tech companies alike.

 

International Perspectives: How Other Jurisdictions Tackle the Issue

United States

The U.S. Copyright Office maintains that only works created by human beings are eligible for

protection. It has explicitly rejected copyright applications for AI-generated content without

significant human involvement.

 

United Kingdom

The UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 provides for computer-generated works and

attributes authorship to "the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of

the work are undertaken." While this seems progressive, the concept remains controversial and

rarely tested in courts.

European Union

The EU also adheres to the principle of human authorship. Ongoing discussions under the EU

AI Act include the possibility of establishing an opt-out mechanism for AI training datasets and

licensing norms.

 

These international examples serve as reference points for India, which has yet to clarify its

long-term stance.

 

Key Legal Challenges

1. Authorship Ambiguity 

 No consensus on who the actual "author" of AI-generated content is.

 Ambiguity weakens enforceability and increases litigation risk.

 

2. Moral Rights and Duration

 Copyright law provides moral rights to authors, such as attribution and protection

against distortion.

 AI cannot exercise or waive such rights, complicating the legal landscape.

 Copyright terms (typically the author's life + 60 years) become meaningless for AI.

 

3. AI Training Data

 AI models are trained on massive datasets, often scraped from copyrighted content.

 Indian law is unclear about whether this constitutes fair dealing under Section 52.

 This could lead to mass infringement if not regulated properly.

 

4. Lack of Judicial Precedent

 Indian courts have not yet delivered a definitive ruling on AI and copyright, making

legal interpretation speculative.

Need for Legal Reform in India

Multiple stakeholders, including legal scholars, think tanks, and parliamentary committees,

have recommended updating Indian copyright law to accommodate emerging technologies.

 

Recommended Reforms:

 1. Define AI-generated Works:

 Explicitly include AI-generated works in the Act and provide criteria for authorship.

 

2. Establish Licensing Frameworks:

 Introduce licensing models or opt-out schemes for AI training datasets.

 

3. Clarify Ownership Rights:

 Assign authorship to developers, users, or companies based on control, input, and

intention.

 

4. Avoid Copyright Monopolies:

 Prevent perpetual copyrights by limiting the duration or providing public domain

exceptions for AI works.

5. Encourage Innovation and Public Interest:

 Strike a balance between protecting human creators and enabling AI-driven creativity.

 

Conclusion

As AI continues to revolutionize creative industries, copyright law in India must evolve to

address the emerging challenges. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, in its current form, offers

limited protection and ambiguous authorship for AI-generated content. Without clear

guidelines, creators, companies, and the courts are left navigating uncharted waters.

While global perspectives offer useful templates, India must develop a framework that reflects

its unique technological, legal, and cultural landscape. Clear, inclusive, and forward-looking

reforms will ensure that innovation continues without undermining the rights of human

creators. 

In this digital age, where the lines between human and machine creativity are increasingly

blurred, the law must not only catch up—but lead.

 

CLOSING CREDIT

About the Author

Shourya Gautam is currently serving as a legal research intern at Nyayavani Foundation, a

PAN-India non-profit organization committed to legal awareness and access to justice. He is

pursuing his B.A. (Hons.) in English from Swami Shraddhanand College, University of Delhi,

with a strong interest in law, communication, and social impact.