Author: M. Srijagruthi, ISBR Law College
To the Point
The “Hybrid Model” represents the 2025 legal resolution to the friction between human intuition and algorithmic efficiency. The debate has moved past whether AI should exist toward how its creative rewards must be shared. The framework stands on three pillars:
* The End of Free Scraping: The era of AI developers harvesting data for free is closing. We are transitioning toward Statutory Licensing, where a digital fee is paid to creators for training data.
* Human-Centric Copyright: A simple prompt is no longer legally sufficient for ownership. Protection is now reserved for “Hybrid Works” where a human has demonstrated significant iterative guidance and refinement.
* Source Transparency: New mandates require AI firms to provide “Source Summaries,” allowing creators to verify if their IP was utilized in training sets.
Use of Legal Jargon
Navigating the 2025 intellectual property landscape requires an understanding of these refined legal doctrines:
* De Minimis Non Curat Lex: (The law does not care about trifles). This is used to deny copyright to low-effort AI outputs. If a user’s contribution is merely a short prompt, it is considered de minimis and unworthy of legal protection.
* Sui Generis Rights: Since AI-generated datasets don’t fit the “human author” definition, jurisdictions are creating sui generis (unique) rights to protect the economic investment in data without granting personhood to machines.
* Transformative Use: Tech firms argue their models don’t “copy” but “transform” data into mathematical patterns. In 2025, courts are narrowing this definition to ensure it doesn’t excuse literal market substitution.
* Collective Management Organizations (CMOs): These act as intermediaries, similar to music royalty boards, collecting fees from AI companies to distribute to registered artists.
The Proof
The transition to a Hybrid Model is evident in both policy and market shifts. A primary example is the U.S. Copyright Office’s “2025 AI Interpretive Rule,” which officially bifurcates a work: the raw AI pixels remain in the public domain, but the human-directed arrangement and narrative structure are protectable.
In India, the DPIIT’s 2025 Discussion Paper suggests that “Fair Dealing” exceptions should not apply to commercial AI training. This led to the proposal of a National AI Royalty Pool. Furthermore, the private sector has already pivoted; in late 2025, major entities like Reddit and News Corp signed multi-year licensing deals with AI developers. These contracts prove that “paying for data” is no longer a choice—it is the industry standard.
Abstract
By late 2025, the legal tug-of-war between creators and the technology sector has reached a pragmatic stalemate. Traditional copyright frameworks, built for static media, are being overhauled to govern generative algorithms. This article explores the rise of the Hybrid Model, a regulatory compromise moving away from the “All-or-Nothing” approach to authorship. It argues that as AI becomes a fundamental tool for expression, the law must recognize the “Human-in-the-Loop.” This ensures that technological innovation thrives without cannibalizing the creative class that makes such innovation possible.
Case Laws
1. ANI Media v. OpenAI (2025 – High Court of Delhi)
This landmark case addressed whether AI scraping constitutes “Fair Dealing” or “Commercial Exploitation.” The court’s move toward a licensing requirement established the judicial foundation for the Hybrid Model in India, ruling that AI cannot simply replace the original source of information without compensation.
2. Thaler v. Perlmutter (Appellate Ruling 2025)
The appellate court stayed firm in its decision: Copyright requires a “human mind.” This prevented a corporate land grab where AI firms could have copyrighted millions of machine-made works daily, which would have saturated the market and marginalized human creators.
3. The ‘Suryast’ Re-Examination (2024-2025)
When an Indian registry initially granted and then revoked co-authorship to a tool called “Raghav AI,” it highlighted the regulatory vacuum. This case influenced the new 2025 guidelines requiring a “Creative Contribution Statement” for any work registered with AI assistance.
Conclusion
The 2025 legal landscape indicates that the “Wild West” of artificial intelligence is finally being regulated. The Hybrid Model is a reflection of human pragmatism. It acknowledges that we cannot un-invent AI, but we must ensure a sustainable ecosystem. By mandating statutory payments for training data and drawing a clear line between “prompting” and “authoring,” the law is finally catching up to the machine. We are entering an era of Compensated Innovation, where the machine provides the efficiency, the human provides the soul, and the law protects the interests of both. The future of copyright is no longer a battle of human versus machine; it is a transparent, paid, and collaborative partnership.
FAQS
Q1: If I use AI to write a book, who owns the copyright?
A: Under the 2025 Hybrid Model, you own the “expressive arrangement.” If you edited the output and structured the narrative, you are the author. Raw, unedited AI output belongs to the public domain.
Q2: How do artists get paid in the Hybrid Model?
A: Most countries are establishing Collective Management Funds. AI firms pay into these pools based on their data volume, and funds are distributed to registered creators, much like digital music royalties.
Q3: Does this model prevent AI from copying my specific style?
A: It provides better tools for enforcement. Transparency mandates allow you to see if your portfolio was used to train “style-mimicking” models, making targeted legal action possible.
Q4: Is the Hybrid Model the same globally?
A: While the EU, USA, and India are leading this shift, some “Data Havens” still exist. However, because the tech market is global, most developers are adopting these standards to remain legal in major economic hubs.
