AMITY UNIVERSITY NOIDA

SUBJECT- Intellectual Property Law

TOPIC- Generative AI & Its Copyright

Issues

BATCH: 2020-2025 COURSE: BA-LLB(H)

SECTION: D

SUBMITTED TO: - SUBMITTED BY:

PROF. RICHA YADAV GAUTAM GOEL A321112310

ABSTRACT
1
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a
transformative technology with the capacity to autonomously create
diverse forms of content, ranging from images and music to text and
even entire works of art. However, the proliferation of AI-generated
content has brought forth complex copyright issues that challenge
traditional legal frameworks and raise fundamental questions about
authorship, ownership, and infringement. This paper provides a
comprehensive analysis of the intersection between generative AI
and copyright law, exploring the implications of AI-generated
content on intellectual property rights and legal doctrine.

The discussion begins by elucidating the mechanisms and techniques

underlying generative AI, including generative adversarial networks
(GANs), recurrent neural networks (RNNs), and deep learning
models. These systems learn patterns from vast datasets and generate
new content based on the learned features, blurring the line between
human and machine creativity. The absence of human agency in the
creative process complicates the attribution of authorship and
ownership, challenging traditional notions of copyright. Central to
the examination is the issue of authorship and ownership of AI-
generated content. Traditional copyright doctrine attributes
authorship to human creators, but the autonomous nature of
generative AI raises uncertainties about the status of AI-generated
works. Moreover, the involvement of multiple parties in the
development and deployment of AI systems further complicates the
determination of ownership rights.
The paper also delves into the challenges of copyright infringement
and liability in the context of AI-generated content. Unauthorized
use of AI-generated works may infringe upon the rights of human
creators or developers of AI systems, yet identifying instances of
infringement and determining liability proves intricate in the realm
of AI-generated content where originality and replication intersect.
Additionally, the paper examines the application of fair use doctrine
to AI-generated content, considering the transformative nature of
such works and their impact on the market for original creations.

2
Policy considerations and potential solutions are also discussed,
highlighting the need for adaptive legal frameworks, industry
standards, and stakeholder collaboration to address the evolving
landscape of generative AI and copyright issues. Through
interdisciplinary efforts, we can navigate the complexities of
generative AI while safeguarding the rights of creators and fostering
innovation in the digital age.

Introduction
Artificial intelligence would be the ultimate version of Google. The
ultimate search engine that would understand everything on the web.
Such fast-paced intelligence with innovations must be safeguarded
by law and secured in reliable hands. The increasing use of Artificial
Intelligence (AI) in creative industries raises copyright concerns,
particularly in terms of whether AI-generated art can be protected
under copyright laws. Generative AI refers to AI systems capable of
autonomously producing new content, often indistinguishable from
human-created works. As generative AI technologies continue to
advance, questions regarding the ownership, protection, and
infringement of AI-generated content have become increasingly
pertinent. This paper aims to analyze the copyright implications of
generative AI, focusing on key issues such as authorship, ownership,
and the fair use of AI-generated works.

Background
Generative AI encompasses a variety of techniques, including
generative adversarial networks (GANs), recurrent neural networks
(RNNs), and deep learning models. These systems learn patterns
from vast datasets and generate new content based on the learned
features. While generative AI has demonstrated remarkable
capabilities in generating realistic and diverse content, it also raises
fundamental questions about intellectual property rights.

3
Copyright Law and AI-Generated Content
Copyright law grants authors exclusive rights to their original works,
including the rights of reproduction, distribution, and public display.
However, the application of copyright law to AI-generated content is
complex due to the absence of human authorship. In many
jurisdictions, copyright protection is contingent upon human
authorship, raising uncertainties about the status of AI-generated
works.

Authorship and Ownership

One of the central issues in copyright law is determining the
authorship and ownership of AI-generated content. Traditional
copyright doctrine attributes authorship to human creators, but AI-
generated works lack human agency in the creative process. As a
result, establishing ownership of AI-generated content becomes
challenging, particularly when multiple parties are involved in the
development and deployment of AI systems. In case AI generated
works are entitled to copyright protection, the next question is, who
is the author of the creative outputs produced by generative AI tools.

Interestingly, the Copyright Act recognizes authorship of computer-

generated works. It stipulates that the author of literary, dramatic,
musical or artistic work which is computer-generated is the "person
who causes the work to be created."6 This provision was inserted
into the Copyright Act through the 1994 amendments. A reading of
the Joint Committee Report on Copyright (Second Amendment Bill),
1992 (Report) suggests that the provision was inserted keeping in
mind the rapid developments in technology, including artificial
intelligence. The Committee acknowledged that through artificial
intelligence, computers could give new ideas, apart from what is fed
into the system. The Committee also discussed the need for
protecting works generated by a computer such as computerized
music, animated films etc. The Committee relied on the Copyright,
4
Designs and Patents Act, 1988 of the UK which grants protection to
"computer-generated works" i.e. work generated by a computer
where there is no human author. The Committee also acknowledged
the need for distinguishing between computer generated works and
computer assisted works (where human contributions can be easily
identified).7

As per the provision, the person who causes the computer-generated

work to be created will be the author of the work. This begs the
question- who is the "person" who has caused the work to be created.
The developer of the AI tool, the user who input the query or the AI
tool itself? Copyright law has till now only recognized natural
persons as authors of a copyrighted work. The term "person" has
also been interpreted conservatively by the Courts in respect of
copyright law.

In 2019, the Delhi High Court rejected a copyright claim over a list
compiled by a computer, on the grounds of, inter alia, lack of human
intervention.8 Further, in 2020, the Copyright Office had recognized
an AI tool, Raghav, as an author of an artwork produced by the AI
tool, along with the developer of the AI tool. This was seen as the
first time that an AI tool was being recognized as an author of a
copyrighted work in India. However, subsequently the Copyright
Office issued a withdrawal notice, stating that the onus was on the
applicant to inform the Copyright Office about the legal status of the
AI tool.9 Arguably, this decision ignored the legislative intent of the
Indian law which specifically recognizes granted protection to
computer generated works.

As businesses start deploying these tools as part of their workflows,

whether to support on writing code, or creating marketing materials,
it is imperative to understand if these works are protectable. In case
they are not going to receive protection, businesses' ability to protect
their IP can be seriously impacted and alternate strategies may need
to be put in place.
5
Infringement and Liability
The proliferation of AI-generated content also raises concerns about
copyright infringement and liability. Unauthorized use of AI-
generated works may infringe upon the rights of human creators or
developers of AI systems. However, identifying instances of
infringement and determining liability become increasingly complex
in the context of AI-generated content, where the line between
originality and replication is often blurred.

Fair Use and Transformative Works

The concept of fair use provides a defense against copyright
infringement for certain transformative uses of copyrighted works.
However, applying fair use doctrine to AI-generated content presents
unique challenges. Determining the transformative nature of AI-
generated works and assessing their impact on the market for the
original works require careful consideration considering the rapid
evolution of AI technologies. These cases are now being disputed.
For a situation recorded in late 2022, Andersen v. Steadiness
computer based intelligence et al., three craftsmen framed a class to
sue various generative computer based intelligence stages based on
the man-made intelligence utilizing their unique works without
permit to prepare their computer based intelligence in their styles,
permitting clients to create works that might be deficiently
extraordinary from their current, safeguarded works, and,
subsequently, would be unapproved subsidiary works. Assuming a
court observes that the simulated intelligence's works are
unapproved and subordinate, significant encroachment punishments
can apply.

Comparative cases recorded in 2023 bring claims that organizations

prepared man-made intelligence devices utilizing information lakes
with thousands or even many unlicensed works. Getty, a picture
permitting administration, documented a claim against the makers of
6
Stable Dispersion charging the ill-advised utilization of its
photographs, both disregarding copyright and brand name privileges
it has in its watermarked photo assortment.

In every one of these cases, the general set of laws is being

approached to explain the limits of what is a "subordinate work"
under licensed innovation regulations and contingent on the locale,
different government circuit courts might answer with various
translations. The result of these cases is supposed to depend on the
understanding of the fair use regulation, which permits protected
work to be utilized without the proprietor's consent "for purposes
like analysis (counting parody), remark, news revealing, educating
(counting numerous duplicates for study hall use), grant, or
exploration," and for an extraordinary utilization of the protected
material in a way for which it was not planned.
This isn't the initial time innovation and intellectual property
regulation have collided with one another. Google effectively
protected itself against a claim by contending that extraordinary
utilize considered the scratching of text from books to make its web
crawler, and for the present, this choice remaining parts precedential.

Yet, there are other, non-innovative cases that could shape how the
results of generative computer-based intelligence are dealt with. A
case before the U.S. High Court against the Andy Warhol
Establishment brought by picture taker Lynn Goldsmith, who had
authorized a picture of the late performer, Sovereign could refine
U.S. intellectual property regulation on the issue of when a piece of
craftsmanship is adequately not quite the same as its source material
to change become unequivocally "extraordinary," and whether a
court can consider the significance of the subordinate work when
that's what it assesses. If the court finds that the Warhol piece is
certainly not a fair use, it could mean difficulty for simulated
intelligence produced works.

7
Policy Considerations and Solutions
Addressing the copyright issues surrounding generative AI requires a
multifaceted approach involving legal, technological, and policy
interventions. Potential solutions include revisiting copyright laws to
accommodate AI-generated content, implementing industry
standards and best practices for AI developers, and promoting
dialogue among stakeholders to ensure balanced and equitable
outcomes.

Critical analysis
The basic examination of generative copyright issues includes
looking at the intricacies and possible outcomes of current copyright
systems with regards to quickly progressing generative man-made
intelligence advances. Here are a few central issues to consider:

1. Ambiguity of Authorship: Generative computer-based

intelligence obscures the lines of initiation, as it can independently
deliver content without direct human mediation. These difficulties
are conventional ideas of copyright, which normally reward
initiation to human makers. Thus, deciding proprietorship and
attribution turns out to be progressively mind boggling.

2. Derivative Works and Fair Use: Generative artificial

intelligence frequently works by gaining from existing information
and making new works that might be viewed as subordinate of
protected material. This brings up issues about the degree to which
generative simulated intelligence yields qualify as fair use or
extraordinary works, particularly when they intently look like unique
substance.

3. Lack of Intent: Not at all like human makers, artificial

intelligence frameworks miss the mark on aim behind their

8
manifestations, prompting troubles in surveying obligation for
copyright encroachment. This raise worries about holding simulated
intelligence engineers, clients, or artificial intelligence frameworks
themselves responsible for any likely infringement.

4. Innovation versus Regulation: Finding some kind of harmony

between cultivating advancement in generative simulated
intelligence advances and safeguarding the privileges of content
makers is testing. Excessively prohibitive copyright guidelines could
smother imagination and frustrate the improvement of man-made
intelligence driven creative articulation, while deficient shields
might subvert the freedoms of makers and boost abuse.

5. International Ward and Enforcement: Intellectual property

regulations differ across purviews, presenting difficulties for
implementing freedoms and addressing encroachments connected
with generative man-made intelligence on a worldwide scale. The
absence of harmonization between overall sets of laws intensifies the
intricacies of controlling artificial intelligence produced content.

6. Emerging Strategy Responses: Policymakers and legitimate

researchers are starting to wrestle with these issues, with some
proposing new systems or changes to existing intellectual property
regulations to address the extraordinary difficulties presented by
generative artificial intelligence. Be that as it may, agreement on the
most proper administrative methodologies still can't seem to be
reached.

CONCLUSION
Generative AI holds immense promise for innovation and creativity,
but it also poses significant challenges for copyright law and
intellectual property rights. As AI technologies continue to advance,
it is essential to adapt legal frameworks and policy mechanisms to

9
address the unique copyright issues raised by AI-generated content.
By fostering collaboration and consensus among stakeholders, we
can navigate the complexities of generative AI while safeguarding
the rights of creators and promoting innovation in the digital age.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright
https://www.theverge.com/23444685/generative-ai-copyright-
infringement-legal-fair-use-training-data

10