Author: Prajwal G Karamallappanavar, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
To the point
The evidence of the generating technology capable of producing creative works and innovations autonomously has sparked a reformed debate in intellectual property law regarding the concept of authorship and inventory in India, the Copyright Act 1957 and the patent act, 1970, presume human creators and inventors, creating ambiguity when non-human entity generate outputs globally, cases like narrow to vs slater and Chalo versus herself felt highlights the judiciary relevance to extent IP rights to human nonhuman. The legal article explores the evolving definition of authorship and inventory ship in the context of generative technology, analysing their capability with India’s IP framework, international treaties, judicial precedents, it examines the challenges of attributing IP rights, the role of human intervention, and the implementation of the for creating an innovation in India’s legal system.
Abstract
The rise of generative technology which produces creative works such as literature, art, and the innovations like a design or a processor, challenges traditional notion of authorship and inventorship in IP law in India the Copyright Act 1957, and the payment date act 1970, are encroached in human centric definitions, living a gap in addressing non-human creations. Globally a legal system grappled with similar issues as seen in the cases denying IP right to non-human entities the art this article analysed the legal complexity of attributing authorship and inventory ship to the generative outputs, focusing on India’s IP frameworks, international obligations under brain convention of and TRIPS agreement, and relevant case laws. It evaluates the role of human contribution, common potential reforms within existing laws, and the border impact on the innovation, creativity, and public policy in India’s evolving technological landscape.
Use of Legal Jargon
The discourse on authorship and inventorship in the context of generative technology engages core IP law principles under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Patent Act, 1970. Don’t suggest that authorship, inventorship, originality, inventive step, and non-obviousness are central to the analysis. Concepts like human interaction, creative contribution, and legal personhood framework the debate reflecting the judiciary’s role in interpreting IP statutes the article also invoked international treaties, such as Berne convention, 1886, And the TRIPS agreement 1994 alongside terms like moral rights and economic rights, highlights the tension between traditional IP doctrines and modern technological advancement.
Background
The emergence of generative technologies-software system capable of autonomously creating literary, artistic, or Technical Outputs-has disrupted traditional IP laws frameworks worldwide including in India under the Copyright Act 1957 section 2 defines an author as a person who calls a work to be created, implying human agency similarly, the patent act, 1970, under the section 6, restricts in inventory ships to natural person, emphasizing human ingenuity. Generative technologies, however, produce output like poems, printing, or portable designs with minimal human input, raising a question about who, if anyone, qualifies as the author or inventor.
In India no specific legislation or judicial president directly addresses generative technology outputs the copyright officials recognise of computer-generated works under section 2(d)(vi) works created by the legal entities offers limited guidance, as it still requires human oversight internationally, cases like Naruto V. Slater USA 2018 and Thaler vs Hirshfeld USA 2021 has rejected non-human authorship and inventory ship, reinforcing anthropocentric IP norms.
The debate centres on three issues: 1. whether generative output meets the threshold of originality or inventive step. 2. Who qualifies as an author or an inventor, the program user, or technological owner, and 3. how to balance IP incentives for which access. The article examines these challenges within legal frameworks, drawing a global perspective and with a case law.
The Proof
India’s IP framework is rooted in human–centric principles. The Copyright Act 1957, under section 13, protects original literary, Artistic, and musical works, with originality implying human creative wit, as clarified in Eastern Book Company versus D. B. Modak (2008). The Patent Act 1970, under section 2(1)(j), defines an invention as a new product or a process involving an inventive step, typically attributed to the human inventor, generating technologies that challenge these technicians, as their outputs may act as direct human creative input yet exhibit originality or innovativeness.
The Berne Convention, 1886, and TRIPS agreement, 1994, to which India is a signature, emphasizing human authorship and inventorship, offering no clear guidance on non-human creation in India, the Copyright Act provisions for computer- Generate works Section 2(d)(vi) assigns authorship to the person causing the works creation, suggesting that the programmers or users may claim rights. However, this provision assumes human oversight, leaving ambiguity when technology operates autonomously.
Globally, courts have resisted extending IP rights to nonhumans. In the Naruto vs Slater 2018 US Court denies copyright to monkey for a selfie, affirming human authorship. In Thaler vs Hirshfeld 2021, the US patent office rejected a patent application listing an AI (DABUS) as the inventor, requiring a human creator first off These cases highlight a global consensus on an Anthropocentric IP law, posing challenges for India’s Judiciary in addressing generative outputs.
The Legal Analysis
The prevalent concept of authorship and inventory ship in the age of generative technology presents several legal challenges in India:
Originality and inventiveness: Step copyright laws require originality, defined as a minimal degree of creativity, as per Eastern Book Company 2008. Generative outputs, like algorithmically created arts, may meet this threshold if they are novel and non-obvious to the patent’s demands and an inventive step, which generative designs may satisfy if they involve non-trivial invention; however, attributing these qualities to a non-human entity complicates IP production.
Attribution of Rights: In India, authorship may be attributed to the program users or technology owner under section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, for patent section 6 restricts inventorship to the natural person, excluding autonomous systems. The question arises whether rights vest in the human who designed the algorithm, initiated the Outputs, or owns the technology. Global practices vary, with some jurisdictions recognising human contribution, for example, the UK Copyright Designs and Patent Act, 1988, which denies rights in the absence of human creativity.
Moral and economic rights: Copyright laws in India grant moral rights under section 57 to authors, protecting their personal connection to the work. Outputs lack this human connection, challenging moral rights attribution, economic rights; however, they could be vast in human stakeholders, aligning with the TRIPS agreement’s focus on commercial exploitation.
Public policy and innovation granting IP rights to generative outputs could incentivise technological development, but risk monopoly gene creativity, limiting public access. Conservatively, denying rights may discourage investment in generative technologies, stifling innovations. India must balance these competing interests within its IP frameworks.
Case Laws
Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Madak (2008): The Supreme Court defined originality as a minimal degree of creativity, irrelevant to the accessing of generative outputs, copyrightability in India.
Naruto vs Slater (2018) USA: This US case denied copyright to a non-human (a Monkey), reinforcing human-centric authorship, a principle applicable to India’s copyright Act.
Thaler v. Hirshfeld (2021, USA): The US patent office rejected AI elementary aligning with India’s patent act requirement for human inventors.
R.G. Anand vs Deluxe film (1978): The Supreme Court case emphasised human creativity in copyright, complicating the recognition of generative output.
Global Perspectives
International approach to generate two outcomes varies from the UK’s copyright designs and the Patent Act,1988, which recognises computer-generated work, attributing authorship to the person arranging the creation. Australia and New Zealand polls similar models, while the US and EU added to human-centric norms, as seen in the Naruto and terror. The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has initiated discussions on AI and IP, but no global consensus exists. India, bound by the Berne Convention and TRIPS, must navigate these models to develop a context-specific approach.
Implications
The evolving concept of authorship and inventorship in the age of generative technology poses significant tech challenges for India’s IP framework, the Copyright Act, 1957, and Patent Act, 1970, require judicial or legislative clarification to address non-human outputs. Recognising the human contribution, program users and or owners could align with the existing laws, but risk oversimplifying the complex creativity process. First, denying IP rights may protect public access, but could deter technological investment.
The lack of Indian guest ownership’s proactive judicial interpretation, potentially drawing on an eastern book company to access originality. Reforms within existing laws, such as amending sections 2(d) of the Copyright Act to clarify generative works, could provide clarity without constitutional changes.
For India’s innovation ecosystem, the issue impacts creators, tech firms, and policymakers. Clear IP rules could position India as a leader in technology-driven creativity, while ambiguity may hinder growth. The public investors’ demands a balance between incentivising innovations and ensuring access to creative outputs, which challenges India’s judiciary is well-equipped to address.
FAQS
What is the issue with authorship and inventorship in generative technology?
Generative technology produces creative works and inventions autonomously, challenges the human-centric definition of authorship and inventorship in IP law.
How does India’s IPL law address generative outputs?
The Copyright Act 1957 and the Patent Act 1970 presume that Indian human creators have living ambiguity for non-human output under section 2(d)(vi).
What do global cases like Naruto vs Slater show?
They refrained from human-centric IP norms, denying rights to non-humans, a principle influencing India’s approach.
Which Indian precedents are relevant?
Cases like Eastern Book Company (2008) and R.G. Anand (1978) emphasised human creativity, complicating generative output recognition.
What are the implications for India?
Clarifying IP rules for generative outputs could boost innovation, but ambiguity risks stifling growth and public access to creativity.
Conclusion
The evolving concept of authorship and inventorship in the age of generative technology presents a critical challenge for India’s IP framework, demanding clarity within the Copyright Act 1957, and Patent Act 1970. Anthropocentric definitions in these laws, as seen in cases like Eastern Book Company vs D.B. Modak (2008), struggle to accommodate non-human creations, while global precedents like Naruto vs Slater (2018) and Thaler vs Hirshfeld (2021) affirm human-centric norms.
Implications for India are profound, impacting innovation, creativity and public access. Judicial or legislative clarification, such as refraining from sections 2(d) of the Copyright Act, could align with existing frameworks while fostering technology growth. Initiative for creators with public interest, India can position itself as a leader in the global IP landscape. The judiciary’s role in interpreting these evolving concepts will be pivotal, ensuring the IP rules remain rebuilt and responsive in a technologically driven era.
