Ownership of AI-Generated Content: Who Holds the Rights?

Author: Nimisha Anuragi, a student at Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur

Abstract

In the era of artificial intelligence (AI), the question of ownership of AI-generated content has gained significant legal and ethical attention. This article examines the implications of AI on intellectual property (IP) rights, focusing on the legal challenges posed by AI-generated works. Specifically, it highlights India’s legal framework while referencing international precedents to offer a comprehensive analysis.

Understanding AI-Generated Content

AI-generated content refers to outputs produced by AI systems based on algorithms and training data. These systems can operate autonomously or semi-autonomously, generating outputs without direct human intervention. For instance, generative AI models like OpenAI’s GPT-4 can produce coherent text, while platforms like DALL-E can create visually stunning images based on textual prompts.

The ability of AI to generate original content has sparked debates in intellectual property law, as traditional IP frameworks were designed with human creators in mind. This mismatch has left courts, legislators, and stakeholders grappling with questions about how to apply existing laws to AI-generated works.

Traditional Frameworks of Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual property law grants exclusive rights to creators of original works, such as literary, artistic, and musical creations. These rights are typically rooted in the notion of human authorship. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, a foundational treaty in copyright law, emphasizes that protection extends to “authors” of original works, implicitly assuming that such authors are human.

The key question is whether AI systems can be considered “authors” under existing IP laws. If not, who—if anyone—can claim ownership of the content they produce?

AI tools provide information based on the pre-existing data and hence it does not qualify the “originality” element of copyright work.

To the Point

Ownership of AI-generated content remains a grey area under current intellectual property laws. Traditional frameworks are designed with human authorship in mind, leaving AI-created works unprotected or ambiguously addressed. Legal interpretations vary across jurisdictions, with some countries experimenting with innovative models and others adhering strictly to human-centric principles.

The Proof

AI-generated content, such as artwork, music, and software code, raises questions about authorship and ownership. For example, generative AI platforms like OpenAI’s GPT-4 or DALL-E operate based on algorithms and training datasets. These systems can produce original outputs without significant human input, challenging traditional notions of authorship and originality.

India’s Copyright Act, 1957, explicitly states that only “authors” can claim copyright protection, and authorship is inherently tied to human creators. However, this definition does not account for content produced by autonomous AI systems. Internationally, cases like ‘Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents’ highlight the evolving judicial interpretations of AI-generated content ownership.

Ownership Models for AI-Generated Content

Several potential models for assigning ownership of AI-generated content have emerged, each with its own implications and challenges.

1. Ownership by the AI System

One radical proposition is that the AI itself could be recognized as the owner of its creations. However, this approach faces significant legal and philosophical hurdles. Under current legal frameworks, ownership is typically tied to legal personhood, which AI systems lack. Granting legal personhood to AI would require a fundamental shift in the law, raising questions about accountability and liability.

2. Ownership by the AI Developer

Another approach is to assign ownership to the entity or individual that developed the AI system. This model views the developer as the ultimate creator, given their role in designing the algorithms and training the system. However, this approach can be problematic in cases where users provide specific inputs or use the AI in creative ways that significantly influence the output.

3. Ownership by the User

A more commonly proposed model assigns ownership to the user who interacts with the AI system to generate content. This approach is particularly relevant when the user provides detailed prompts or guidance that shape the AI’s output. However, disputes may arise over the degree of human contribution required to establish ownership.

4. Joint Ownership

Joint ownership between the developer and the user is another potential solution. This model acknowledges the contributions of both parties but may lead to complications in practice, such as disagreements over how to exploit or monetize the content.

5. No Ownership

Some argue that AI-generated content should not be eligible for copyright protection at all, treating it as public domain material. This approach avoids the complexities of assigning ownership but may discourage investment in AI technologies and creative endeavours.

Jurisdictional Approaches to AI-Generated Content

Different jurisdictions have adopted varying approaches to the question of AI-generated content ownership.

United States  

In the United States, copyright law requires a “modicum of creativity” and is rooted in human authorship. The U.S. Copyright Office has consistently refused to register works created entirely by AI without human input. For example, in 2022, the office denied copyright protection for an image generated by an AI system called Creativity Machine, stating that copyright law does not extend to works produced by non-human entities.

However, when human authors contribute significantly to the creation process, such as by providing detailed prompts or editing the AI’s output, they may claim ownership of the resulting work. This approach underscores the importance of human involvement in establishing copyright protection.

European Union

The European Union (EU) has not yet established a unified framework for AI-generated content, but its copyright laws emphasize human authorship. The EU’s Copyright Directive requires that works be the result of an author’s intellectual creation. As such, purely AI-generated content may not qualify for protection under current EU laws.

Some EU member states, such as the United Kingdom (post-Brexit), have taken a more flexible approach. UK copyright law grants protection to computer-generated works, defining the “author” as the person who made the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work. This provision could extend to AI-generated content, depending on the circumstances.

Case Laws

India

  1. Indian Copyright Act, 1957: This act forms the basis of copyright law in India, emphasizing human authorship as a prerequisite for copyright eligibility. While the act does not explicitly address AI-generated content, it has been interpreted to exclude non-human authorship.
  2. ‘Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008)’: This Supreme Court case discussed the “sweat of the brow” doctrine, emphasizing the necessity of creativity and originality. Although not directly addressing AI, it underscores the human-centric approach of Indian IP law.

International

  1. ‘Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents (Australia, 2021)’: The Federal Court ruled that AI systems could be listed as inventors in patent applications, signaling a potential shift in how legal frameworks address AI contributions.
  2. ‘Naruto v. Slater (United States, 2018)’: While not about AI, this case involved a monkey’s selfie and the question of non-human authorship. The court ruled against granting copyright to a non-human entity, reinforcing the human authorship requirement.
  3. UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988: The UK law includes provisions for computer-generated works, attributing authorship to the person who “arranged” for the work’s creation. This flexible approach could extend to AI-generated content.

Conclusion

The ownership of AI-generated content is a complex legal issue that requires balancing innovation, fairness, and ethical considerations. In India, the existing framework of the Copyright Act, 1957, necessitates legislative amendments to address AI-generated works explicitly. Drawing from international case laws and policy experiments, India can develop a nuanced legal framework that accommodates technological advancements while preserving the principles of originality and creativity.

FAQS

Q1: Can AI be considered an author under Indian law?
No, Indian copyright law requires human authorship for copyright protection.

Q2: Who owns AI-generated content in India?
Currently, no clear legal framework exists. Ownership could depend on factors like human involvement and contractual agreements.

Q3: How does international law address AI-generated content?
Approaches vary. The UK allows for computer-generated works with attributed authorship, while the US and EU emphasize human authorship.

Q4: What are the implications of not granting ownership to AI-generated content?
It could lead to disputes over rights and discourage investment in AI technologies.

Q5: What steps can India take to address this issue?
India can amend its Copyright Act to include provisions for AI-generated works, drawing from international best practices and stakeholder consultations.

Bibliography

  • “Copyright Act, 1957,” Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
  • Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1.
  • Federal Court of Australia, Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents, [2021] FCA 879.
  • Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).
  • United Kingdom, “Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.”
  • WIPO, “Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property,” World Intellectual Property Organization, accessed January 2025.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *