Author: Panya Tyagi, Amity Law School, Amity University, Noida
Abstract
The rapid advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have revolutionized various industries, including the creative sector. However, the question of whether AI-generated works can be granted copyright protection remains a contentious legal issue. Additionally, the aspect of liability for AI-generated content poses significant challenges in legal jurisprudence. This article explores the existing legal frameworks, relevant case laws, and potential legislative developments concerning AI-generated works. The discussion highlights the role of copyright laws, the evolving stance of courts, and the regulatory gaps that must be addressed to ensure clarity in AI-related intellectual property and liability matters.
Introduction
Artificial Intelligence has transformed the creative and commercial landscape, producing music, artwork, literature, and even legal documents autonomously. However, legal systems worldwide are struggling to define the ownership rights and liability aspects of AI-generated works. Traditional copyright laws are centred around human authorship, leading to a complex legal vacuum when addressing AI-generated content. This article critically examines the current legal position on AI-generated works, the challenges in attributing copyright, and the liability concerns arising from AI-driven creativity.
Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works
The Concept of Authorship in Copyright Law
Copyright law is traditionally based on the principle that an original work must be created by a human author. Section 13 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 states that copyright subsists in original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. Similarly, the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §102) and the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 recognize human authorship as a prerequisite for protection.
The question of whether AI-generated works can receive copyright protection was tested in the U.S. in Naruto v. Slater (2018), where the Ninth Circuit Court held that a non-human entity (in this case, a monkey) could not claim copyright. This reasoning has been extended to AI-generated works, as seen in the recent Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023) case, where the U.S. Copyright Office refused to grant copyright for an artwork created by an AI system, citing the absence of human authorship.
International Perspective on AI Copyright
Globally, jurisdictions have taken varied approaches toward AI-generated works. The European Union Copyright Directive (2019) leans toward recognizing AI-assisted human creators rather than granting rights to AI itself. In contrast, Japan and China have proposed partial protection for AI-generated content under their copyright laws, provided human intervention is demonstrable.
Liability for AI-Generated Content
Who Bears Responsibility?
Beyond copyright concerns, AI-generated content raises critical issues of liability. AI models, particularly generative models like ChatGPT, DALL-E, and Midjourney, can produce misleading, defamatory, or infringing content. The primary legal question is: who should be held liable for AI-generated infringements—the developer, the user, or the AI itself? The principle of intermediary liability, recognized in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) under Indian jurisprudence, exempts platform providers from liability for third-party content unless they have actual knowledge of the infringement. This principle, however, does not clearly extend to AI-generated content, creating a regulatory grey area.
Product Liability and AI Misuse
AI systems are increasingly being viewed through the lens of product liability laws. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (India) and the EU Product Liability Directive, manufacturers and developers can be held liable for defective AI outputs. However, proving negligence or intent in AI-generated errors remains a challenge. The case of Uber’s self-driving car accident in Arizona (2018) illustrates the difficulty in attributing liability when AI operates autonomously.
Regulatory and Legislative Developments
Several countries are working on legislative solutions to address the challenges posed by AI-generated works. The UK AI White Paper (2023) and the EU AI Act (2023) propose frameworks for AI governance, including intellectual property concerns. India is yet to introduce a dedicated AI law, but the Draft National AI Strategy (NITI Aayog) emphasizes the need for an AI regulatory mechanism.
Conclusion
The legal status of AI-generated works remains an evolving debate with significant implications for copyright protection and liability. Existing copyright laws require reform to accommodate AI-generated content while ensuring that human creators remain incentivized. Similarly, liability frameworks need to be revisited to address accountability for AI-driven infringements and errors. Policymakers must strike a balance between fostering AI innovation and safeguarding intellectual property rights and legal accountability. The future of AI law will depend on how courts and legislatures adapt to this rapidly evolving technological landscape.
