Author: Karnika Sarkar
College: Surendranath Law College, University of Calcutta
Abstract
The modern world is rapidly evolving through advancements in science and technology, with Artificial Intelligence (AI) emerging as one of the most transformative innovations of the 21st century. AI enables computer systems to perform tasks that typically require human intelligence, including learning, reasoning, problem-solving, and content generation. While AI has revolutionised various sectors, it has also given rise to significant legal challenges, particularly in the field of copyright law. The increasing use of AI to create literary, artistic, and musical works has raised complex questions concerning authorship, ownership, and copyright protection. This article examines these emerging legal challenges within the framework of the Copyright Act, 1957, while highlighting the need for legal reforms to address AI-generated content in India.
To The Point
AI-generated content refers to text, images, audio, video, or code created by artificial intelligence systems based on user prompts and data-driven algorithms. Unlike traditional software, AI can analyse large datasets, identify patterns, and generate contextually relevant content with minimal human intervention.
The rapid advancement of AI has transformed several sectors, including education, healthcare, business, journalism, and entertainment. However, its increasing use has also created significant challenges in copyright law. Copyright protects the rights of creators over their original literary and artistic works, including books, music, films, paintings, computer programs, and databases. The emergence of AI-generated content has blurred the distinction between human and machine-created works, raising complex legal questions concerning authorship, ownership, originality, and intellectual property rights.
Under Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the author of a computer-generated work is recognised as the person who causes the work to be created. However, this provision was enacted before the emergence of modern generative AI and does not clearly determine the ownership of AI-generated works. It remains uncertain whether copyright should belong to the user providing the prompt, the AI developer, the company owning the AI system, or whether such works should receive copyright protection at all.
These uncertainties have made AI-generated content one of the most significant emerging issues in Indian copyright law. As AI is increasingly used for commercial and creative purposes, there is an urgent need for a clear legal framework that balances technological innovation with the protection of intellectual property rights while providing legal certainty to creators, developers, and users.
Use of Legal Jargon
The legal framework governing copyright protection in India is primarily contained in the Copyright Act, 1957, which grants exclusive rights to authors over original literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, cinematographic, and sound recording works. Copyright protection is based on the principle of originality, requiring a work to involve a minimum degree of intellectual creativity. However, the application of these principles to AI-generated content remains legally uncertain.
Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act defines the term “author”for different categories of works and recognises the person who causes a computer-generated work to be created as its author. However, the emergence of generative AI has complicated the interpretation of this provision, particularly where AI generates creative content with minimal human involvement.
The concepts of copyright ownership, infringement, licensing, and intellectual property rights have therefore become central to determining the legal status of AI-generated works. In the absence of specific legislation regulating generative AI, courts and policymakers continue to examine how existing copyright principles can be adapted to emerging technologies.
The Proof
The Copyright Act, 1957 protects original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. However, it was enacted long before the emergence of modern generative Artificial Intelligence. Although Section 2(d)(vi) recognises the person who causes a computer-generated work to be created as its author, it does not specifically address AI-generated content created with minimal human intervention. This legislative gap has created uncertainty regarding the applicability of copyright law to AI-generated works.
Another key issue is the requirement of originality, which is essential for copyright protection. Since AI systems generate content by processing vast amounts of existing data, it remains uncertain whether such output satisfies the requirement of human creativity under copyright law. The absence of specific statutory guidance has further complicated this issue.
Generative AI has also raised concerns regarding copyright infringement, as AI models are often trained using datasets containing copyrighted books, articles, images, music, and other creative works. Where such material is used without permission, questions arise regarding infringement and the legal liability of AI developers and users.
These challenges highlight the need for legislative reforms and judicial interpretation to clarify the legal status of AI-generated works in India. A balanced legal framework should protect the rights of creators while encouraging technological innovation and ensuring that copyright law remains relevant in the digital era.
Case Laws
Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008)
The Supreme Court examined the issue of originality in copyright law and rejected the traditional “sweat of the brow” doctrine. The Court held that copyright protection requires a minimum degree of creativity, commonly referred to as the “modicum of creativity” standard. Mere labour, skill, or investment of time is insufficient unless the work reflects some intellectual creativity. This judgment significantly influenced the standard of originality under Indian copyright law. In the context of AI-generated content, the decision is highly relevant because it raises the question of whether works produced predominantly by artificial intelligence satisfy the requirement of human creativity necessary for copyright protection.
R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978) 4 SCC 118
The Supreme Court held that copyright protects only the expression of an idea and not the idea itself. Although both works shared a similar theme, the Court found no infringement because the expression, presentation, and execution were substantially different. This judgment established the “idea-expression dichotomy” and the “ordinary observer test” in Indian copyright law. In the context of AI-generated content, the decision is relevant because it reinforces that copyright protects original expression rather than ideas alone.
Burrow Gilles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
The Court recognised that a photograph could receive copyright protection because it reflected the photographer’s intellectual skill and creative judgment rather than mere mechanical effort. The decision emphasised the importance of human authorship in copyright law. This principle remains highly relevant in determining whether AI-generated works can satisfy the traditional requirement of human creativity.
Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc.
The Court held that originality does not require novelty but only independent creative expression. Even slight creative variations may qualify for copyright protection if they are not copied from another work. This decision is relevant to AI-generated content because it raises the question of whether AI-generated works demonstrate the originality necessary for copyright protection.
Conclusion
Artificial Intelligence has transformed the creation of literary and artistic works while simultaneously challenging traditional principles of copyright law. The existing provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 do not adequately address issues relating to AI-generated content, particularly concerning authorship, ownership, originality, and infringement. As AI continues to evolve, India must develop a clear legal framework that balances technological innovation with the protection of intellectual property rights. Such reforms will ensure legal certainty for creators, developers, and users while enabling copyright law to remain relevant in the digital era.
FAQs
Q1. What is AI-generated content?
Answer: AI-generated content refers to text, images, music, videos, software code, or other creative works produced by Artificial Intelligence systems based on user prompts and data-driven algorithms.
Q2. Does the Copyright Act, 1957 specifically regulate AI-generated works?
Answer: No. The Copyright Act, 1957 does not specifically regulate AI-generated works. Although Section 2(d)(vi) refers to computer-generated works, it does not expressly address authorship and ownership in relation to modern generative AI.
Q3. Can Artificial Intelligence be recognised as an author under Indian copyright law?
Answer: At present, Indian copyright law does not recognise Artificial Intelligence as a legal author. The issue of whether AI-generated works should receive copyright protection remains a subject of legal debate.
Q4. Why is originality important in copyright law?
Answer: Originality is one of the essential requirements for copyright protection. A work must involve a minimum degree of creativity and intellectual effort to qualify for copyright protection under Indian law.
Q5. Why is there a need for legal reform regarding AI-generated content?
Answer: Rapid advancements in Artificial Intelligence have created legal uncertainties concerning authorship, ownership, originality, and copyright infringement. Therefore, legislative reforms are necessary to provide legal certainty while promoting innovation and protecting intellectual property rights.
Bibliography
Books
• P. Narayanan, Copyright and Industrial Designs.
• WIPO publications
Statutes
• The Copyright Act, 1957.
Cases
• Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1.
• R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) 4 scc 118
• Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884).
• Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., 191 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1951).
Journal Articles
• AI AND COPYRIGHT: NAVIGATING LEGAL FRONTIERS IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE by Stuti Puria and Dr. Seema Gupta.
• CONVERGENCE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE WITH IP LAWS by Anushka Dwivedia.
