Author: Divay Nair | B.Sc. LL.B. (Hons.), JECRC University
Introduction: When Fashion Meets Algorithms
The world of fashion is no longer limited to sketchbooks, scissors, or sewing machines. Today, a fashion designer might start their creative process by typing a few descriptive words into an AI tool like Midjourney or DALL·E, which instantly generates a visually stunning outfit. In minutes, a machine can produce patterns, textures, and even full-fledged digital garments.
But as the fashion world embraces artificial intelligence, an important legal question emerges.
If AI creates a fashion design, who owns it?
Is it the designer who prompted the tool? The tech company that built the AI? Or… is it no one at all?
This article explores this legal grey area especially through the lens of Indian copyright law and considers what reforms are needed to stitch the law to our fast-evolving creative landscape.
AI in Fashion Design: A New Kind of Designer
AI has become a creative collaborator in the fashion industry. Designers use it to:
Generate textile prints and embroidery motifs.
Visualize clothing collections before stitching a single thread.
Design fashion that lives purely in the digital world like a saree made for your metaverse avatar or a stylish handbag that exists as an NFT”.
Predict fashion trends and color palettes.
Tools like Runway ML, DeepArt, DALL·E, and Midjourney are no longer sidekicks; they’re becoming co-creators.
In 2019, The Fabricant sold a virtual-only dress named Iridescence for $9,500. It was designed using AI no fabric involved, just code and creativity.
This AI-human partnership is thrilling. But legally, it’s confusing.
Under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, artistic works such as fashion sketches, textile designs, or digital illustrations are protected, provided they meet one essential requirement: originality with human authorship.
According to Section 2(d): An “author” is defined as the person who creates the work. So, if a machine generates a design with little or no human involvement, does it qualify?
Right now, Indian law doesn’t see AI as a creator in its own right. This creates a legal vacuum for fashion creators using AI as their design partner.
A Practical Example
Let’s say a young Indian designer uses DALL·E to create a stunning Anarkali gown with modern Mughal motifs. She selects the best of five outputs, edits it using graphic software, and shares it on Instagram.
A few weeks later, a fast fashion label releases a gown strikingly similar to her AI-generated image.
Can she claim copyright infringement?
Not easily.
She didn’t sketch it herself.
The AI produced it.
The design isn’t registered.
This is a real dilemma for thousands of digital-age creators in India.
Indian Judiciary on Machine-Assisted Works
While India hasn’t had a landmark case on AI-generated fashion yet, we can take clues from other rulings involving creativity and originality.
In Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008), the Supreme Court held:
The work should come from the author’s own ideas and not be taken from someone else. It also needs to show at least a little creativity or originality.
This implies that unless a human exercises judgment or skill, copyright won’t be granted. If AI generates an image autonomously, it likely won’t qualify as “original work” under Indian law.
Moreover, there is no provision in the Indian Copyright Act that addresses computer-generated works the way the UK does.
Global Glimpse: How Other Countries Are Handling It
United States: No Room for AI
In Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023), the U.S. Copyright Office made it clear that only humans can hold copyright for creative works. The case involved an artwork made entirely by an AI called “Creativity Machine.”
Its creator, Stephen Thaler, tried to get it copyrighted, but the Office said no. Their reasoning?
Copyright law is meant to protect human creativity not something made entirely by a machine. So unless a person plays a real creative role like guiding, editing, or shaping the AI’s output works made by AI alone aren’t protected under U.S. copyright law.
United Kingdom: A Step Ahead
In the UK, the approach to AI-generated content is refreshingly practical. According to Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, if a work is created by a computer or AI, the law still sees a human behind it.
Specifically, the person who guided the process by setting things up, making decisions, or directing how the AI produces the work is legally considered the author. So even if a machine does the heavy lifting, it’s the human who shaped the outcome that gets the credit.
Australia and European Union: Human-Centric Approach
Australia and most EU countries follow the human authorship model, requiring substantial human involvement. However, EU is actively debating reforms for AI accountability, including intellectual property.
What Happens to AI-Generated Fashion Designs in India?
If you are an Indian designer using AI to generate clothing ideas, here are the key issues you may face:
Authorship is Unclear
The AI can’t own rights. But your claim depends on how much control you had in shaping the output.
No Legal Recognition for AI-Created Works.
Current copyright law doesn’t even mention AI or machine-created works.
No Case Law Yet in India.
Courts haven’t been tested with such disputes yet. Legal clarity is lacking.
Fast Fashion Brands Could Exploit the Gap.
Without protection, your AI-generated work could be copied without consequences.
Real-World Case: Christian Louboutin v. Amazon Sellers
While not AI-specific, the Louboutin v. Amazon case (2020) in India highlighted the dangers of platform-enabled design copying. Luxury brands are already facing challenges in protecting original patterns from being digitally cloned, which is even easier with AI tools.
This case shows that IP enforcement in fashion is tricky even now and AI only complicates it further.
Can Prompting Be Considered Creativity?
Let’s revisit the earlier example of a designer typing:
“Generate a saree with futuristic patterns, pastel tones, and embroidered peacocks.”
If she:
Chooses from 10 outputs.
Edits the best one.
Combines it with her prior designs.
Then she’s adding creative direction, selection, and modification which may meet the threshold for copyright protection.
But typing just one prompt and posting the result might not be enough.
Key Legal Challenges
No Statutory Definition of “Prompt Engineering”.
Laws need to define whether prompting = authorship.
Ownership Conflicts Between AI Platforms and Users.
Some tools (like Midjourney) claim shared rights unless you subscribe.
Even if rights exist, proving originality and enforcing infringement is hard in digital fashion.
Lack of Awareness Among Designers.
Many creators don’t know how copyright law applies to AI use.
What Can India Do? (Suggested Reforms)
Amend the Copyright Act, 1957.
Include a section on AI-generated works, possibly inspired by UK’s model.
Create Guidelines for Fashion & AI IP Protection.
The Indian Copyright Office and IPAB (now abolished) should issue practical guidance for designers.
Recognize the Prompt Engineer as Author.
If the AI is just a tool, the creative human should be credited and protected.
AI platforms should allow creators to timestamp their work and prompts.
Legal education around AI and IP should become part of fashion and design schools’ curriculum.
My Perspective: The Law Must Evolve With the Loom
As a law student deeply interested in both fashion and tech, I believe that creativity shouldn’t be defined by the medium alone. Whether it’s charcoal on canvas or code on screen, the mind behind the creation matters.
AI doesn’t dream. It doesn’t feel fabric, nor does it understand tradition or culture. The designer does.
So when a person guides, edits, and builds upon AI output, their input deserves protection. Denying copyright just because a machine was involved is like refusing to credit a photographer who used a high-end camera.
Conclusion: Stitching Creativity into the Legal Framework
Fashion is an art of expression. With AI, it’s becoming an art of collaboration. But if Indian laws remain silent on this shift, we risk stifling creativity just when it’s breaking new ground.
The Indian IP regime must embrace the future, not fear it. Whether it’s a handloom from Varanasi or a digital-only saree created using Midjourney.
The law must ask:
“Was there human ingenuity involved?”
If yes, then the creator deserves rights—because imagination, even when aided by AI, is still a deeply human affair.
References & Citations
Copyright Act, 1957 (India), Section 2(d)
Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, AIR 2008 SC 809
Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 22-509 (U.S. District Court, 2023)
UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 – Section 9(3)
Christian Louboutin SAS v. Amazon Sellers, Delhi HC (2020)
The Fabricant (2019), Iridescence Dress NFT
OpenAI, DALL·E & Midjourney Terms of Use (2024)
Harvard Law Review (2022), “AI and Copyright: The Human Dilemma”
FAQs
Q1. Can I copyright an AI-generated fashion design in India?
Only if you add significant human creativity.
Q2. Does Indian law recognize AI as a creator?
No, only humans can be authors under current law.
Q3. Can someone copy my AI-generated design legally?
Yes, if your human input is minimal or unclear.
Q4. How do other countries treat AI-created works?
Laws vary—UK allows human-guided AI works; US does not.
Q5. What changes are needed in Indian copyright law?
It needs to recognize human-AI collaboration in creation.
