Author: Pooja Singh, Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidhalaya
Abstract
The rapid evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has introduced complex challenges at the intersection of intellectual property and privacy law in India. While AI-driven innovations are revolutionizing creativity and knowledge production, they raise unresolved questions about authorship, ownership, and data use. In India, these questions are further complicated by the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which recognized privacy as a fundamental right. This article explores how AI interacts with the Indian copyright framework and the constitutional right to privacy post-‘Puttaswamy’. It examines whether existing laws are equipped to address AI-generated works, the consent and data protection concerns raised by AI, and the tension between innovation and individual rights.Ultimately, the article argues for a balanced legal framework that promotes AI growth while safeguarding creative ownership and personal data in line with India’s constitutional ethos.
Introduction
Artificial Intelligence is no longer confined to laboratories and speculative fiction. From generating music and literature to analyzing biometric data, AI is steadily transforming how society creates, consumes, and governs information. However, its rise creates legal puzzles that conventional frameworks struggle to answer.
In India, two domains stand at the forefront of this debate: copyright law and the constitutional right to privacy. The Copyright Act, 1957, rooted in human authorship, faces disruption by non-human creativity. Simultaneously, the recognition of privacy as a fundamental right in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) provides a constitutional bedrock for data protection—directly clashing with AI’s dependence on massive datasets, often collected without meaningful consent.
This article charts how India can navigate the future of AI while reconciling copyright and privacy concerns in a post-Puttaswamy landscape.
AI And Copyright : Who owns Creativity?
1.The Human-Centric Copyright Regime
The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, vests authorship and ownership in “authors” and “creators.” For literary, artistic, or musical works, the author is explicitly defined as a human. This raises immediate issues when AI tools autonomously produce poems, paintings, or software code.
Key questions emerge:
० Can AI be considered an “author”?
० If not, should the ownership vest in the programmer, the user, or remain in the public domain?
2.Global Perspectives
० United Kingdom: The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, assigns authorship of computer-generated works to “the person who made the arrangements necessary.”
० United States: Courts and the U.S. Copyright Office have rejected copyright claims for AI-created works (Naruto v. Slater and recent AI authorship cases).
० India: The law remains silent, creating ambiguity and leaving AI-generated works in a legal vacuum.
3.The Indian Dilemma
In India, two competing approaches exist:
1. Human-Centric Approach: Only human creativity merits copyright. AI-generated works should remain unprotected, preserving the human essence of art.
2. Functional Approach: The individual who inputs instructions or invests resources in AI creations should be deemed the author.
The choice between these approaches has profound implications for innovation, investment, and access to knowledge.
Privacy in the age of AI: the puttaswamy lens
1. The Puttaswamy Doctrine
The 2017 Puttaswamy judgment enshrined privacy as intrinsic to dignity and liberty under Article 21. It established key principles:
० Privacy includes informational self-determination.
० Any data collection must meet tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
० State and private actors are equally bound to respect privacy.
2. AI’s Dependence on Data
AI thrives on “big data.” From facial recognition to targeted advertising, AI systems extract, process, and infer sensitive personal details. This reliance often clashes with Puttaswamy privacy safeguards:
० Consent: Users rarely provide informed consent for how their data is processed by AI.
० Proportionality: AI’s vast data appetite often exceeds legitimate state or commercial needs.
० Surveillance: Predictive policing, biometric tracking, and algorithmic profiling raise Orwellian concerns.
3. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
India’s newly enacted DPDP Act, 2023 attempts to operationalize privacy protections. However, critics argue that:
० Exemptions for state surveillance dilute privacy guarantees.
० Ambiguities in AI regulation remain unresolved.
० Cross-border data flows lack robust safeguards.
Thus, AI continues to test the boundaries of privacy rights, demanding stronger alignment with Puttaswamy’s constitutional spirit.
The Interplay : copyright meets Privacy
Interestingly, copyright and privacy do not operate in isolation in the AI age. Their interplay creates unique challenges:
1. Data as Raw Material
AI often scrapes copyrighted works (novels, artworks, music) to “learn.” This raises two-fold issues:
० Copyright Infringement: Use of creative works without authorization.
० Privacy Violations: Use of personal data embedded in those works.
2. Fair Use vs. Personal Dignity
Indian copyright law permits fair dealing for research and education. But when AI mines personal writings, photographs, or health records, fair use clashes with privacy and dignity.
3. Deepfakes and Misappropriation
AI-generated deepfakes exploit personal likeness without consent, implicating both copyright (image rights) and privacy (informational autonomy).
Charting the future : towards a balanced legal framework
India must not choose between innovation and rights—it must harmonize them. The way forward includes:
1. Amending the Copyright Act
० Define authorship for AI-generated works.
० Introduce a “sweat of the brow” approach, recognizing users or programmers as authors.
० Carve out exceptions for transformative AI learning under fair use.
2. Strengthening Privacy Safeguards
० Align the DPDP Act with Puttaswamy by narrowing state exemptions.
० Mandate transparency in AI data use.
० Ensure algorithmic accountability through audits.
3. Judicial Guidance
Courts, building upon Puttaswamy, must articulate AI-specific privacy standards. Similarly, copyright disputes involving AI require nuanced judicial interpretation.
4. Ethical AI Governance
Law must be supplemented by ethics—ensuring AI development respects dignity, creativity, and democratic freedoms.
Conclusion
The intersection of artificial intelligence with privacy and copyright challenges compels India to recalibrate its legal frameworks. After Puttaswamy, privacy stands as a constitutional beacon, while copyright law grapples with redefining authorship in an era dominated by algorithms. The future lies in striking a balance—where innovation flourishes without infringing on fundamental rights.
As Albert Einstein wisely observed, “The human spirit must prevail over technology.” India’s engagement with AI is not just a technological experiment; it is a constitutional commitment. By rooting progress in principles of dignity, creativity, and justice, India can ensure that AI becomes a force that amplifies human values rather than diminishes them.
FAQS
1. Why is Puttaswamy significant in the AI debate?
Because it constitutionally recognizes privacy as a fundamental right, making any AI-driven data collection subject to constitutional scrutiny.
2. Can AI be considered an author under Indian copyright law?
Currently, no. The Copyright Act assumes human authorship. However, debates continue on whether programmers, users, or no one should own AI-generated works.
3. How does AI infringe privacy?
Through mass surveillance, profiling, facial recognition, and using personal data without informed consent.
4. What is the DPDP Act, 2023, and does it solve AI-related concerns?
It is India’s new data protection law. While it establishes some safeguards, it does not fully address AI-specific issues such as algorithmic transparency and consent.
5. What reforms are needed in India?
Amending copyright law to clarify authorship, strengthening privacy safeguards under the DPDP Act, judicial guidance on AI, and embedding ethical AI governance.
