Author : Shivani Maddhishiya, Law Centre -2(DU)
Introduction
What if Instagram’s most followed influencer isn’t human? What if your favorite novel was written by a machine rather than a human author? Welcome to the age of AI-generated personas, which include virtual influencers, writers, musicians, and public figures. As they gain social and economic worth, one question resonates across legal forums:
Can AI avatars be given legal identity? Can they own intellectual property or be sued for what they say?
In order to support a new type of digital existence, this article examines the pressing necessity to determine whether artificial intelligence should be given limited legal personhood, akin to that of corporations or trusts.
The Rise of AI Personas
Our culture is already being shaped by non-human producers, from Lil Miquela, a virtual fashion model with millions of followers, to GPT-written poetry and AI-generated music that dominates streaming charts. These AI characters: Indicate brand support, Engage audiences and even provide original material.
Yet, in the eyes of the law, they are legal “nobodies”—without rights, duties, or recognition.
The Legal Vacuum in India
Current Indian law states that only natural and juristic entities, such as businesses and non-governmental organizations, have the ability to sue or be sued.
Patent and copyright regulations presume a human creator or innovator. Non-human public figures or creative agents are not acknowledged. This creates an unsettling gap that AI can influence markets, manipulate opinion, and earn money, yet cannot be held accountable or claim protection.
Comparative Perspective
Several international developments provide insight into how other jurisdictions are addressing this challenges.
The idea of giving autonomous systems “electronic personhood” was formally debated in the European Parliament in 2017, and future procedures for identifying AI entities were suggested.
In Naruto v. Slater (9th Cir., 2018), also known as the “Monkey Selfie Case,” a U.S. court ruled that non-human entities (a monkey, in this case) cannot hold copyrights, reinforcing the limitation of personhood to humans.
The UK Court ruled in Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents (UK, 2021) that AI (DABUS) could not be acknowledged as an inventor since, according to existing legislation, only humans could be considered inventors.
In the 2021 case of Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents, the Federal Court of Australia accepted DABUS as a valid inventor, signaling a dramatic change toward restricted acceptance of AI.That year, South Africa made history by being the first nation to formally acknowledge DABUS, an AI system, as the creator of a patent application.
Collectively, these instances highlight the urgent need for regulation while illuminating the global gap on the legal treatment of AI.
Should AI Be a Juristic Person?
In the same way that companies, which are non-living entities, can possess property and face penalties, should some AI personalities be given the same legal standing?
Justifications for Legal Identity
1. Economic participation: AI influencers create revenue and own digital assets.
2. Accountability: Their legal identification enables them to be held accountable for misinformation, slander, or hate speech.
3. Innovation Support: Encourages developers to push AI frontiers within a regulated legal framework.
Rebuttals to Legal Identity
1. No Consciousness or Intent: AI lacks mens rea (guilty mind), which is required for criminal or moral responsibility.
2. Risk of Legal Shielding: Businesses may utilize AI personhood to avoid accountability by “blaming the bot.”
3. Ethical Concerns: Granting personhood could potentially blur the line between humans and machines.
Finding a Balance
The Middle Ground The law can take into account AI avatars’ limited legal standing as an alternative to full personhood:
1.Granting them ownership of intellectual property rights (given to human controllers or developers).
2.Blaming platforms or authors for damaging or offensive content.
3.Establishing a database of AI personas with explicit attribution under IP or IT legislation
Conclusion
As reality changes, so must the law. AI avatars have evolved beyond science fiction to become cultural influences and economic players. Ignoring them creates a legal void that can be abused and confused. India must initiate the discussion, but it does not have to jump to complete “AI personhood.” The legal sector must improve its readiness as the digital world grows more sophisticated.
Maybe it’s time to ask: if an algorithm can create, earn, and influence—shouldn’t it also be recognized?
Frequently asked questions (FAQs)
1. Can an AI be considered a legal person in India?
Answer: No, Indian law currently does not recognize AI as a legal person. At present, only human beings and legal entities like companies are granted the right to sue or be sued. Nonetheless, the concept of granting AI limited personhood is becoming more popular in scholarly and legal debates.
2. What is the difference between a juristic person and a natural person?
Answer: A natural person is a living human with rights and responsibilities. A non-human entity that is legally recognized to possess property, enter into contracts, and be held accountable—such as a business, trust, or non-governmental organization—is known as a juristic person.
3. Has any country recognized an AI system as a legal entity?
Answer: Not fully. However, Australia and South Africa have recognized an AI system (DABUS) as a patent inventor, which is a step toward limited legal recognition. Although “electronic personhood” has been proposed in the European Parliament, no nation has given AI full legal status.
4. Why is there a need to grant legal identity to AI avatars?
Answer: AI personas are now generating content, making money, and influencing public opinion. Legal identity would help in assigning liability for harm caused, protecting AI-generated intellectual property & preventing misuse or legal ambiguity.
5. What are the dangers of giving AI legal status?
Answer: Potential risks include, misuse by corporations to avoid accountability, ethical concerns about equating AI with humans & difficulty in regulating AI behavior due to lack of consciousness or intent.
6. Can AI own copyright or patents under current Indian law?
Answer: No. Under Indian copyright and patent laws, only humans are recognized as authors or inventors. AI-created works cannot be registered without a human being named as the author or applicant.
7. Is there any draft law in India that addresses AI legal identity?
Answer: As of now, there is no specific legislation in India that addresses AI personhood or legal identity. However, AI governance is being discussed in policy circles, especially by NITI Aayog and legal think tanks.
