Author: Arpita Kamble, a student at HVPS College of Law
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/arpita-kamble-2953a1334
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has changed the way creative content is produced. This development has created an important copyright question: who may claim rights when content is produced with AI assistance? Under the Copyright Act, 1957, computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works are recognised, with authorship linked to the person who causes the work to come into existence. However, modern generative AI creates new questions concerning human authorship, originality and the extent of creative contribution required for copyright protection. This article examines the Indian legal framework relating to AI-generated content, relevant judicial principles and recent policy developments, while highlighting the continuing uncertainty surrounding fully AI-generated works.
Generative AI systems can produce text, images, music and other creative material in response to user instructions or prompts.
Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that, in relation to a computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, the author means the person who causes the work to be created. This provision is particularly significant because it expressly recognises computer-generated works within the statutory concept of authorship.
However, uncertainty remains about how much human creative involvement is necessary for copyright protection in generative AI.
Therefore, operating an AI tool alone does not automatically establish copyright ownership. The nature and extent of human creative contribution must also be considered.
Section 13 protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works under copyright law. Section 14 sets out the exclusive rights that constitute copyright, including reproduction and communication of the work to the public.
In Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, the Supreme Court emphasised skill and judgment as relevant to originality. For AI-assisted works, the extent of human creativity may influence whether copyright protection is available.
In R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, the Supreme Court held that copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. This principle also applies when assessing whether AI-generated material contains copyrightable expression.
India’s current copyright framework leaves important questions about authorship and protection of AI-generated content unresolved.
The DPIIT Working Paper on Generative AI and Copyright explores whether the present Indian copyright regime can adequately respond to issues arising from generative AI. It addresses both the use of protected works as inputs for AI systems and the legal status of AI-generated outputs, particularly questions of authorship and copyrightability.
Copyright in AI-generated output must be distinguished from the use of protected works to train AI systems. These are separate legal questions. The former concerns authorship and copyrightability of the output, while the latter concerns whether protected works can lawfully be used as inputs for AI systems.
A recent development in India is the dispute between ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. and OpenAI. On 24 July 2026, the Delhi High Court declined to grant ANI interim relief in its copyright dispute with OpenAI. The Court considered allegations concerning OpenAI’s use and storage of ANI’s copyrighted news content for AI training and held, at the interim stage, that the challenged use did not amount to copyright infringement under the circumstances before the Court.
This development highlights the growing judicial attention to the relationship between copyright law and AI training in India. It also shows that AI-related copyright disputes concern both ownership of generated output and the use of protected works in developing AI systems.
1. R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978)
In R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, the Supreme Court distinguished between an idea and its expression, holding that copyright protects the latter. Applied to AI-generated works, this principle means that protection depends on the original expression contained in the work.
2. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2007)
The Supreme Court held that copyright protection requires sufficient skill and judgment. In AI-assisted content, the extent of human intellectual contribution may therefore influence originality.
3. Thaler v. Perlmutter: Comparative Perspective
In Thaler v. Perlmutter, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that an AI system cannot be recognised as the author of a copyrighted work, reaffirming the requirement of human authorship.
Although this U.S. decision does not govern Indian law, it offers useful comparative insight into AI-generated works and the requirement of human authorship.
4. ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI
On 24 July 2026, the Delhi High Court declined ANI’s request for interim relief, holding at the prima facie stage that OpenAI’s storage of ANI’s works for training fell within Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act.
The case is significant because it demonstrates that AI-related copyright disputes are not limited to ownership of AI-generated output. They can also concern the use of copyrighted works as training inputs and the application of statutory exceptions under copyright law.
AI-generated content creates significant challenges for traditional copyright principles. However, modern generative AI creates situations in which the degree of human involvement may vary considerably.
A person who adds meaningful skill, judgment, selection, arrangement or editing may have a stronger claim to copyright than someone who only provides minimal instructions to an AI system.
Accordingly, copyright ownership cannot be assigned solely on the basis of the AI platform used or the person who entered the prompt. The relevant question is whether the user made sufficient human creative contributions within the applicable copyright framework.
Clearer legal guidance may ultimately be required to protect human creativity while encouraging responsible technological innovation.
Q1. Can AI itself own copyright in India?
AI is not treated as a conventional human author under Indian copyright law. The important question is identifying the human person who may qualify as the author of a computer-generated work.
Q2. Does typing a prompt automatically give a person copyright over the AI output?
Not necessarily. Authorship and copyrightability may depend on the nature and extent of the human creative contribution.
Q3. What does Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act provide?
It provides that, in relation to a computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, the author is the person who causes the work to be created.
Q4. Is AI-assisted content different from fully AI-generated content?
Yes. The copyright position may differ where a human contributes substantial creative skill, judgment, selection, arrangement or editing rather than merely receiving an output with little meaningful human contribution.
Q5. Does India have a complete law specifically governing generative AI copyright?
India currently applies its existing copyright framework to these issues, while policymakers and courts continue to examine questions created by generative AI.
References
1. Copyright Act, 1957 – Copyright Office, Government of India
2. Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Working Paper on Generative AI and Copyright, December 2025
3. Press Information Bureau, DPIIT Working Paper on Generative AI and Copyright
4. R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, Supreme Court of India
5. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, Supreme Court of India
6. Thaler v. Perlmutter – United States Court of Appeals
7. ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI OpCo LLC, Delhi High Court, Judgment dated 24 July 2026
