This article is written by shagun srivastava from Allahabad state university (5-year integrated BA LLB course 2020-25) during my internship.
Introduction
The rapid expansion of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies has revolutionized creative industries, enabling machines to autonomously produce literary texts, artworks, music, and more. This unprecedented development poses a fundamental question that shakes the very foundations of copyright law: Can machines hold copyright over their creations? This Article delves into the legal, ethical, and philosophical dimensions of AI-generated works’ copyright status, focusing on India’s context while drawing comparative global perspectives. Under current intellectual property laws worldwide, including India, machines (AI systems) cannot hold copyright because copyright protection fundamentally requires human authorship and originality resulting from human creativity. Copyright law is designed to promote human innovation by granting exclusive rights to human creators, and AI, lacking legal personhood, intent, or moral agency, cannot be recognized as an author or rights-holder. In a decision released on March 18, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that non-human machines cannot hold copyright over the works they create. 1 The decision hinges on a fundamental principle of the US Copyright Act of 1976, which establishes that only human beings can be recognized as the authors of their work.
1. The Traditional Framework of Copyright and Authorship
- Human Creativity as the Cornerstone:
Copyright law, historically and legally, is predicated on the premise that only humans can be authors and creators, with originality and intellectual effort stemming from human skill and judgment. The Berne Convention (1886) and most national copyright statutes reflect this principle. - Legal Definition of Author (India):
The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 defines an “author” as a person who creates a work. Courts interpret “person” primarily as a natural human being, as in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008), where originality was linked to human skill and judgment, excluding purely mechanical effort. - Work-for-Hire and Authorship:
In cases where human creativity is delegated (e.g., employees creating works), copyrights vest in the hiring party. However, the essence remains human origination.
2. The Rise of AI and Its Challenge to Existing Copyright Doctrines
- AI as a Creative Agent:
Modern AI systems such as ChatGPT, DALL•E, and Gemini can autonomously generate content with minimal direct human input, blurring lines between tool-assisted and independent creation. - The Legal Dilemma:
- Can AI be an Author?
Since AI lacks consciousness, intent, and moral agency, it does not meet the human authorship requirement established by law. Globally, copyright offices and courts unanimously reject AI as legal authors. - User, Owner, or Developer as Author?
The main contest lies in who owns the rights: the user providing prompts, the AI developers, or neither—leading to unresolved complexities. - Key Judicial Decisions:
- Stephen Thaler v. Perlmutter (US, 2023–2025): US courts held AI cannot be the author of works; copyright requires human authorship. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this, emphasizing “human creativity is the sine qua non of copyright.”
- Naruto v. Slater (Monkey Selfie Case): Copyright rejected for a monkey’s photographs, showing non-humans lack legal authorship.
- Contrasting Approaches in Other Jurisdictions:
UK law assigns authorship for computer-generated works to the person who arranges for creation; China has begun recognizing AI-assisted works where human intellectual effort exists.
3. Indian Legal Context on AI-Generated Works
- Statutory Framework:
- Section 2(d) (vi) of the Indian Copyright Act recognizes computer-generated works and assigns authorship to the person who causes the work to be created. Yet, this does not extend authorship rights to AI autonomously.
- No explicit provisions or amendments at present address AI as an author or owner of copyright.
- Significant Human Input Test:
Indian legal scholars advocate for a “significant human input” criterion—human involvement beyond mere prompting, involving substantial skill, judgement, and creative choices, to qualify for protection. - Registration Practices:
Copyright applications require human authorship, and AI-created works are likely registered under the human user or AI owner, rather than AI itself. - Current Debates and Prospective Reforms:
Policymakers and stakeholders recognize the urgent need for legislative reform adapting to AI’s role in creativity, balancing innovation incentives with fair protection of human creators.
4. Ethical, Social, and Economic Implications
- Human Creativity vs. Machine Output:
Artists express concern that AI might displace genuine human creativity, disadvantaging traditional creators. - Ownership Conflicts:
Questions arise: Does the user prompting AI hold ownership? Does the AI developer? Or does the content remain unowned/public domain? - Fair Remuneration and Economic Fairness:
As AI can produce thousands of creative outputs quickly, human creators face challenges in remuneration, fair competition, and employment displacement. - Moral Rights Consideration:
Moral rights—such as the right of integrity and attribution—are inherently human and non-transferable, complicating AI-generated work recognition.
5. Model Approaches to AI-Generated Copyright
- Human-Centric Model:
Copyright is granted only if a human shows meaningful creative contribution; AI is treated as a tool. - Joint Authorship Model:
AI and humans regarded as co-authors, with a legal proxy managing AI’s contribution; currently more theoretical than practical. - Public Domain Model:
AI-generated works without human input fall into public domain; promoting open access to AI creativity. - New sui generis Rights Model:
Creating a new class of rights specific to AI-generated content, distinct from traditional copyright.
6. AI Training Data, Fair Use, and Copyright Infringement
- Training Data Concerns:
AI systems feed on massive datasets, often including copyrighted works, raising lawsuits alleging unauthorized use. - Fair Use Doctrine:
The scope of fair use in AI training remains unsettled; courts weigh factors like purpose, nature, amount used, and market effect. - Impact of Pending Litigation:
High-profile lawsuits (e.g., Andersen v. Stability AI, NY Times v. OpenAI) may redefine legal parameters for AI content and training.
7. International and Comparative Perspectives
- United States:
Firm stance against AI authorship; only humans hold rights. Human contributions to AI-assisted works may qualify. - United Kingdom:
Statutory provision for computer-generated works assigns authorship to the arranger or person making the arrangement. - China:
Emerging jurisprudence recognizes originality with human intellectual effort in AI-assisted works. - European Union:
Regulatory proposals balancing innovation, copyright protection, accountability, and transparency. - Canada:
Ongoing debates echo US positions; recent cases deny AI as sole author but recognize potential co-authorship where human input exists.
8. The Way Forward: Recommendations and Policy Considerations
- Legislative Reforms Needed:
India and other jurisdictions must amend copyright law to clearly define AI authorship, ownership, and liability, reflecting AI’s creative capabilities. - Frameworks to Distinguish Levels of Human Involvement:
Laws should differentiate works wholly generated by AI, AI-assisted with human input, and purely human-generated. - Balanced Protection to Encourage Innovation:
Protect human creators and incentivize AI development without granting undue monopoly to AI outputs. - Transparency and Disclosure Obligations:
AI platforms should disclose AI involvement in content generation when registering copyrights. - International Harmonization:
Alignment of copyright standards globally to manage cross-border AI creations and enforce rights effectively. - Ethical Guidelines and Moral Rights Reinforcement:
Strengthen protections of human moral rights even in AI-enhanced creative domains.
International Perspectives on AI and Copyright
The United States
In the U.S., the Copyright Office has issued guidance stating that works lacking human authorship are not eligible for copyright protection. This remains consistent with legal decisions like Thaler v. Perlmutter, asserting that authorship must pertain to a human creator. The U.S. courts emphasize the necessity of human involvement, and while AI can produce creative outputs, those outputs require human creativity to warrant copyright protection.
European Union
Conversely, the EU has adopted a more nuanced approach by introducing provisions that address AI-generated works. For example, the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 attributes authorship in computer-generated works to the person making the necessary arrangements for creation. This provides a pathway that allows for machine-generated outputs while still emphasizing human involvement.
India’s Legal Framework on AI and Copyright
In India, the legal landscape is similarly challenging. The Copyright Act, 1957 does not specifically address AI-generated works, contributing to legal ambiguity. Current provisions focus on human authorship and creativity, making it difficult for works created solely by AI to qualify for copyright protection. Nonetheless, recent developments, such as recognizing AI’s role in co-authorship of artworks, indicate an evolving approach within Indian law.
Implications for Future Copyright Reforms
The Need for Legislative Updates
These complexities highlight the urgent need for legislative updates to address AI’s transformative role in creative processes. Lawmakers may consider several approaches, including:
- Amending Copyright Laws: Introducing clear provisions that recognize AI-generated works based on human involvement and creative input.
- Creating Licensing Frameworks: Establishing mechanisms for licensing rights related to AI-generated outputs while ensuring a balance between innovation and protection for human creators.
- Clarifying Human Involvement: Defining the extent of human creativity required for copyright protection to be granted to AI-assisted works.
Ethical Considerations
As AI continues to disrupt creative industries, ethical dilemmas surrounding authorship and compensation arise. The potential replacement of human creators by AI systems raises concerns about economic disparities and creative equity. Therefore, legal reforms should consider not only intellectual property rights but societal impacts as well.
Conclusion
In conclusion, contemporary copyright law remains rigidly anchored in the principle of human authorship, thereby excluding autonomous AI systems from holding copyright. AI-generated works, while transformative, exist in a legal vacuum with respect to ownership and protection. Human creativity is and should remain the sine qua non of copyrightability. Indian law follows this anthropocentric tradition but stands at the crossroads where reforms are urgently needed to accommodate AI’s creative role fairly and pragmatically.
Addressing the complex interplay of AI, law, and creativity calls for nuanced legislative frameworks that balance incentivizing innovation with protecting human authors. The future of creative property rights in an AI-augmented world thus depends on adapting legal definitions, recognizing varied modes of authorship, and fostering an intellectual property regime fit for the digital age.
