Author: Hitesh, Chandigarh University
Linkedin Profile : https://www.linkedin.com/in/hitesh-dixit-b01604349?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app
Abstract
There is swift investment of the creating artificial intelligence (AI) they not only transform the environment of the digital content creation but also increase the many ethical agencies. Artificial intelligence is create the machine, creating architecture, especially large language and image synthesis tools, have to capacity to create text, image, audio, and synthetic data sates that are almost indistinguishable from human output. AI system who compose, talk, diagnose, drive and lots of thing more. But here a issue of trust, misappropriate content, copy write content etc.it has radically challenged the conventional understanding of author, data protection and legal responsibility. The progress is involved a multitude of legal irregularities such as, but not exhausted, infringement to intellectual property right, dissemination of defamatory violation of informational privacy. Their are some rule in copyright act, 1975, IT act, 2000, and digital personal date protection act, 2023, their are no clear rules for AI. Moreover, it outlines doctrinal ambiguities concerning attribution of liability, authorship assertions, data fiduciary responsibilities, and regulatory monitoring. The paper concludes by suggesting a sui generis legislative model well-suited to the Indian socio-legal context, recommending principles of transparency, accountability, proportionality, and human-centered governance in the regulation of GenAI technologies.
To the Point
In this age, AI facilitate the revolution within the sector of content development, Education, Legal document drafting and Design. But with these revolutions, a number of serious legal and ethical challenges also arose. The most essential concerns are:
• Right infringement – When GenAI produces output using training data obtained from already copyrighted material, is the output an infringement?
• Violation of privacy – Most AI tools capture the date for different sites without the consent of the user, their by invasion of basic privacy data.
• Misinformation and Deep fake – The production of deceptive image and deceiving the content endanger the public trust and can lead to defamation.
India does not have a specific AI-specific legal regime at present, and it is difficult to prevent abuse and fix accountability in the absence of this. This is an important issue as AI usage is growing exponentially, but legal regimes are not keeping up. Without legal certainty, ethical protection, and strong data protection practices, the unbridled application of GenAI has the potential to hurt society as well as the legal system.
The Proof
(Expanded Facts, References, and Authorities)
Statutory Instruments:
Copyright Act, 1957: Does not recognize non-human authorship; GenAI outputs cannot claim copyright unless sufficient human intervention exists.
Information Technology Act, 2000: Offers limited redress for harmful online content under Sections 66D, 67, and intermediary liability (Section 79).
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: Requires lawful processing of personal data, with informed consent, which is often bypassed in AI training.
Doctrinal Ambiguities:
Legal personhood of AI: Indian law does not recognize AI as a juristic person capable of bearing rights or duties.
Attribution of liability: Complex when AI operates autonomously without human prompt or control.
Consent and fair use: Data scraped from public platforms may violate data subject rights under privacy jurisprudence.
International Norms:
EU Artificial Intelligence Act (2024): Classifies GenAI as “high-risk,” imposing transparency and data governance obligations.
U.S. Copyright Office Policy (2023): Requires human authorship for copyright eligibility; excludes works generated solely by AI.
Ethical Frameworks:
OECD Principles on AI: Advocates transparency, accountability, and respect for human rights.
UNESCO Recommendation on AI Ethics: Emphasizes fairness, non-discrimination, and sustainability in AI deployment.
Case Laws
Union of India v. K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) 10 SCC 1
In a historic nine-judge panel ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy as a basic freedom guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This ruling is essential for regulating GenAI, especially when it comes to the unlawful use of private information for AI decision-making, profiling, or training, which may violate informational privacy.
Union of India v. Shreya Singhal (2015) 5 SCC 1
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 was invalidated in this instance due to its ambiguity and violation of Article 19(1)(a)’s guarantee of free speech. The ruling has ramifications for reducing AI-generated disinformation and bogus content since it highlights the necessity of clarity and legitimacy in legislation governing online expression.
United States District Court, Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023)
The court in this U.S. federal lawsuit maintained the Copyright Office’s decision to deny copyright protection to an AI-generated piece of art. It established a global precedent that is pertinent to Indian policymakers addressing authorship of AI-generated works by restating the necessity of human authorship for copyrightability.
Visakha Industries & Anr. v. Google India Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 4 SCC 162
Under Section 79 of the IT Act, the Supreme Court considered internet intermediaries’ liability. It made clear that if intermediaries do nothing after learning of illegal content, they risk losing their “safe harbour” safeguards. When assessing the culpability of GenAI platforms that host or disseminate potentially hazardous AI-generated material, this is important.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ritesh Sinha (2019) 8 SCC 1
According to the Court, requiring an accused person to produce speech samples does not infringe upon their Article 20(3) protection to self-incrimination. This case emphasizes the constitutional balance between technology and individual liberty and is pertinent to GenAI in connection to biometric data, voice cloning, and deepfake regulation.
D.B. Modak v. Eastern Book Company (2008) One SCC One
The “modicum of creativity” criteria for copyright protection in compilations was established by the Court. When determining whether an AI-assisted work that requires little human input is eligible for copyright protection, this doctrine is particularly relevant to GenAI results.
Facebook Inc. v. Swami Ramdev (2019) SCC OnLine Del 10701
The Delhi High Court decided that if Indian courts order it, middlemen like Facebook must remove the content worldwide. The extraterritorial implementation of content-related orders, particularly those pertaining to harmful or infringing AI-generated media, is directly impacted.
Conclusion
The spread of GenAI poses a legislative conundrum as well as an opportunity for innovation. Even while the current laws in India provide a variety of protections, the quick development of GenAI calls for a unique regulatory tool. Legislative clarity on the legal standing of AI-generated works, the obligations of GenAI creators, and the recourse available to harmed parties is urgently needed. It is necessary to pass a comprehensive AI Act that covers the following topics:
Acceptance of AI-generated content within a specified legal framework.
Attribution of legal liability based on chain-of-command and platform control.
Enforcement of informed consent and data minimization principles during AI training.
Obligations for transparency, such as watermarking and source disclosures.
Institutional oversight through an AI regulatory authority with adjudicatory powers. Such a statute must be informed by constitutional mandates of fairness, dignity, and accountability to ensure that technological advancements do not undermine democratic values.
FAQS
Q1. Can AI-generated works be copyrighted under Indian law?
No. Under current statutory interpretation, only natural or juristic persons can claim authorship. AI lacks legal personhood and cannot own or transfer rights.
Q2. Who is liable if an AI tool generates harmful, false, or illegal content?
Liability may rest with the programmer, deployed, or platform, depending on control, foreseeability, and negligence. Courts may apply tort law and the IT Act provisions.
Q3. How does Indian law handle synthetic media and deepfakes?
Sections 499 (defamation), 415 (cheating), 66D (impersonation), and 67 (obscenity) of the IPC and IT Act may subject them to civil and criminal penalties.
Q4. When creating AI rules, what international models may India take into account?
India might learn from China’s required content labeling law, the EU’s risk-based approach, and the US human-authorship norm.
Q5. What policy mechanisms are recommended to govern GenAI effectively?
A national AI law, ethics charter, independent regulatory body, algorithmic audit mandates, and public awareness campaigns are essential to ensure responsible AI development.
