THE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON COPYRIGHT

LAW IN INDIA

Submitted by:
Biswarupa Das - SF0123013
Harshita Das – SF0123021
Suwala Kaman – SF0123055
Tanishka Tyagi – SF0123057
Uma Sharma – SF0123060

BL307 PROTECTION OF COPYRIGHT: A PRACTICAL APPROACH

(MDC)

Submitted to
Dr. Sharmistha Baruah
Faculty of Law, NLU ASSAM

National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER- 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Overview of Copyright Law in India ............................................................................................ 4
1.2 Aim................................................................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Objective. ...................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Scope & Limitation ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Literature Review.......................................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 8
1.7 Research Methodology ................................................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER- 2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF COPYRIGHT LAW IN INDIA ..................................... 9
2.1 Post Independence Period ............................................................................................................. 9
2.2 International acclimation ............................................................................................................ 10
2.3 Digital Age Challenges and Reforms .......................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER- 3 AI & COPYRIGHT ....................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER- 4 CHALLENGES POSED BY AI TO COPYRIGHT LAW ............................................ 14
4.1 Authorship and Originality: ........................................................................................................ 14
4.2 Infringement Concerns: Copyright Issues with AI-Generated Outputs ...................................... 15
4.3 Fair Use Doctrine and AI-Generated Content ............................................................................. 15
CHAPTER- 5 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES .............. 17
5.1 Global Approaches to AI and Copyright ..................................................................................... 17
5.2 Lessons for India: The Impact of AI on Copyright Law ............................................................. 18
CHAPTER- 6 PROPOSED REFORMS FOR INDIAN COPYRIGHT LAW...................................... 20
6.1 Need for a Digital Copyrights Act .............................................................................................. 21
6.2 Significant Human Input Test ..................................................................................................... 21
6.3 Recommendations for Legislative Changes ................................................................................ 22
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 24
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 26
 ABSTRACT
The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies is posing serious
challenges and opportunities to copyright law across the globe. This study assesses the
interplay that exists between an AI and copyright law in the context of the Copyright Act,
1957, the backbone institution of creators' rights in India. While this Act was meant to protect
original works across different creative domains, it throws certain complications due to the
generation of new AI tools such as ChatGPT and DALL-E, which enable machines to create
content without any human input. As AI technology develops, the question of whether the
existing copyright regimes in India are applicable becomes critical. This research is aimed at
analysing the current legal provisions on authorship and ownership under the Copyright Act
with regard to potential gaps within the legal framework and advocacy for required reforms
to accommodate AI-generated works. The main objectives include, analysing the historical
context, studying the impact of AI on copyright law and a comparative analysis of India's
approach with international practices. The study lays emphasis on the need for reform in
copyright law in view of that reality by advocating for Digital Copyrights Act or equivalent
legislative measures. Thus, this research work aims at providing insight to policy makers, law
practitioners and scholars on how copyright law shall be kept relative to a future, more
automated world.
 CHAPTER- 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview of Copyright Law in India

The Copyright Act of 1957 governs the copyright law in India. The act aims to govern the
rights of authors, creators, and other stakeholders concerning their works. The law establishes
a legal framework for the protection of a very wide range of artistic and literary works
ranging from books, films, and music to software, paintings, and other original works. It
helps creators to exercise exclusive rights on their work so that it cannot be reproduced,
distributed, or performed publicly without consent. Originally, the Act was brought in
consonance with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works,
thereby making it the only worldwide system for the intellectual property protection. The law
has gone under several amendments over the years to keep pace with rapid changes owing to
technology and new expressive mediums. The most significant of these amendments have
taken into account the adaptation of law to digital media concerning the incoming waves of
the internet along with implications of digital reproduction and distribution. However, while
the Copyright Act, 1957, nurtures creativity and innovation, it has not been able to keep pace
with the fast-paced advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and the myriad complex
questions posed by these technologies in terms of copyright and intellectual property.

The last few decades have seen rapid developments in artificial intelligence technologies that
changed the dynamics of many sectors. Content creation, design, entertainment, and many
more are just a few areas on the receiving end of benefit from these advancements.
Generative AI, for example, which produces output such as writing, images, music, or even
videos with little involvement from humans, is one of its newest developments and includes
such applications as ChatGPT, DALL-E, and Midjourney. AI tools are increasingly
generating visual art, music and multi-media content, thus creating an ambiguous area of
boundaries around an origin-human versus machine creator. The debate has emerged on
whether the creators of AI-generated works (the developers of the AI, users of the tools, or
the AI itself) should be entitled to copyright protection. The existing copyright framework is
challenged by the new realisation, as these technologies are evolving dangerously fast. AI-
generated content, to many, is often regarded as a mere by-product of the AI system
programming without any reference to a particular human creator. This, in turn, breaches the
core tenets of copyright, which have hitherto thrived on the principle of human authorship
and creativity being the foundation of ownership. More so, issues pertaining to authorship of
works, ownership of data for training, and liability in infringements have built an intricate
legal context that demands prompt discrimination and reform.

1.2 Aim
This study is an effort to evolve the issues surrounding AI-generated content and how it is
changing copyright law in India, along with the associated challenges for legal practitioners
and the creative industries. The study will also offer recommendations to ensure potential
legal reforms with which India can one day arm its copyright system to face the future
complexities that AI will produce regarding innovation, creativity, and intellectual property
rights. This research, thus, attempts to feed into the growing discussion about the interface of
technology, law, and creativity in the twenty-first century.

1.3 Objective
The objective of the study is to analyze the current legal framework governing copyright law
in India, with a focus on its applicability to Artificial Intelligence (AI) creations.To explore
how AI contributes to the creation of copyrightable works and identify the challenges
associated with attributing authorship and ownership.To study relevant judicial
pronouncements in India and other jurisdictions addressing the intersection of AI and
copyright law. To review international copyright law developments and best practices in
addressing AI-generated works, comparing them with the Indian legal framework. Lastly to
identify gaps, ambiguities, and challenges in the Indian copyright regime when dealing with
AI-created content.

1.4 Scope & Limitation

The study aims to explore the influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on copyright law in
India, focusing on the following areas:

1. Understanding AI-generated Works: Examining whether AI-generated content

qualifies for copyright protection under Indian law.

2. Ownership and Authorship: Analyzing legal challenges in determining authorship

and ownership of works created using AI.

3. Existing Legal Framework: Evaluating the adequacy of the Indian Copyright Act,
1957, in addressing issues arising from AI innovations.
 4. Global Perspectives: Comparing Indian copyright law with international frameworks
to identify potential reforms.

5. Future Implications: Exploring how advancements in AI technology might

necessitate legal reforms in copyright law.

Limitations

1. Geographical Focus: The study is limited to the Indian legal framework and does not
extensively analyze copyright laws of other jurisdictions beyond comparative insights.

2. Technological Scope: The research focuses on AI-generated works and their

implications on copyright law, excluding other aspects like patents or trademarks.

3. Legal Precedents: Limited judicial pronouncements in India regarding AI and

copyright law may restrict the depth of analysis.

4. Dynamic Nature of AI: The rapid evolution of AI technology and its applications
might render some aspects of the study less relevant over time.

5. Data Availability: Limited access to empirical data on AI's impact on copyright law
in India may constrain the study’s practical insights.

1.5 Literature Review

The interplay between artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright law has emerged as a
significant area of inquiry, particularly in jurisdictions like India where the digital economy is
rapidly expanding. This literature review synthesizes the insights from four foundational
texts:

Rachael K. H. Lee, Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property

Lee’s work provides a foundational understanding of how AI challenges traditional

intellectual property frameworks. She identifies the tension between the human-centric
assumptions of copyright law and the autonomous nature of AI-generated outputs. Lee’s
discussion of global legislative trends offers a comparative lens, highlighting the lag in Indian
copyright law in addressing AI-related issues. She advocates for a nuanced approach to
defining authorship and ownership, which could serve as a template for Indian policymakers.
Her analysis emphasizes the need to balance incentivizing AI innovation with protecting the
rights of human creators, a theme particularly relevant in India’s creative and technology
sectors.

Paul Torremans, Copyright Law and Artificial Intelligence: A Global Perspective

Torremans adopts a broader perspective, examining the implications of AI on copyright law

across various jurisdictions. His exploration of the "originality" criterion in copyright law is
particularly pertinent to the Indian context, where the Copyright Act, 1957, emphasizes
creativity and labor. Torremans critiques the limitations of existing frameworks in
recognizing AI-generated works, proposing new models that integrate AI’s role as a tool and
co-creator. His insights on the global harmonization of AI and copyright law are especially
valuable for India, which is increasingly engaging in international trade and intellectual
property agreements.

Jonathan M. Barnett, The Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Handbook

Barnett’s handbook provides a detailed exploration of the intersection of copyright law and
AI, with a focus on practical applications and legal precedents. His analysis of case law and
statutory developments offers a roadmap for addressing AI-related copyright issues. For
India, Barnett’s emphasis on judicial interpretation is particularly relevant, given the
judiciary’s pivotal role in shaping copyright jurisprudence. He discusses scenarios involving
AI as a creator, emphasizing the importance of clarity in copyright ownership and liability.
Barnett’s work underscores the potential for AI to disrupt traditional creative industries,
urging policymakers to anticipate and address these challenges.

David J. H. Sutherland, AI and Copyright: The Future of Creativity

Sutherland’s recent publication delves into the philosophical and practical implications of AI
on the future of creativity. He argues that AI has redefined the boundaries of creativity,
challenging traditional notions of human authorship. Sutherland’s exploration of copyright
law’s adaptability to technological advancements is particularly relevant to India, where rapid
technological adoption coexists with outdated legal frameworks. His recommendations for
policy reforms, including the introduction of AI-specific copyright categories, provide a
forward-looking perspective. Sutherland’s focus on ethical considerations in AI and copyright
aligns with India’s broader discussions on responsible AI use and innovation.
1.6 Research Questions
 What are the challenges in applying the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, to AI-generated
works?

 How does India's approach to AI and copyright compare to that of other jurisdictions
like the US, EU, and China?

 What mechanisms exist for enforcing copyright in cases involving AI-generated

works in India?

1.7 Research Methodology

This is a secondary research project. In this project, qualitative research techniques were
employed to understand "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Copyright Law in India".
For this project, secondary sources were employed as research materials .Data has been
collected from various net resources, books and articles. The research has been compiled and
analysed using Bluebook 20 th edition as a mode of citation in this project.
 CHAPTER- 2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF COPYRIGHT LAW IN
INDIA
This Act of 1847 had mainly the benefit of colonial authorities and gave limited scope for
Indian creators. It applied very minimally to published works and remained out of reach for a
large part of the Indian population due to high levels of illiteracy and lack of publishing
industries of their own.

With the intensifying Indian independence movement in the early 20th century, the demand
for a copyright system no longer dependent on European interests but reconcilable with the
interests of Indian creators became well recognized. In response to the demand, the British
created the Indian Copyright Act, 1914, extending provisions of the Copyright Act of 1911
(UK) to India. This Act marks a great step in giving a broader picture of copyright "for
certain things such as music, art, and cinematographic films."

The 1914 Act also ushered in the provision of moral rights, emphasizing the author’s
recognition as the creator of a work. Unfortunately, the law continued to remain out of the
reach of an average Indian and even suffers the crux of British principles in law without
consideration for the local cultural scenario.

2.1 Post Independence Period

When India got independent in 1947, it immediately set out to develop its legal frameworks
in consonance with the aspirations and identity of its sovereign people. The Copyright Act of
1957 was one such very significant piece of legislation enacted by the Indian Parliament,
which replaced the colonial laws. It was in fact one of the earliest postindependence
intellectual property laws to be congruent with India's socioeconomic realities.

Though it was originally founded on common law principles, the Act went on to provide
exhaustive and comprehensive copyright protection in a wide variety of expressions
including literary works, dramatic works, musical works, artistic works, cinematographic
films, and sound recordings. It also created clauses concerning compulsory licensing for the
greater public interest use of works under copyright. And it included the recognition of the
performers' and broadcast rights, both features highlighting the culturally and technologically
growing environment of India.
2.2 International acclimation
The changes to the Indian copyright law were also about various amendments made to fulfill
the requirements of an international treaty or convention. It becomes a party to the Berne
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, since 1974, India was a member
of it and emphasized national treatment by and removing formalities for seeking copyright
protection.

Amendments were made to the Copyright Act of 1957, to bring Indian law in line with the
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, which India
ratified in 1995. Such changes improved enforcement mechanisms, intensified the security of
computer software and digital works, and lengthened the continuance of copyright protection.

2.3 Digital Age Challenges and Reforms

Digital era present a lot of challenges to copyright laws in India. Widespread Internet and
digital media and file-sharing technology have called for another legal amendment. The
Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 was a landmark reform made to address this challenge.

The main features of the 2012 Amendment are:

i. Expanded Rights for Performers and Authors: These enhancements involve greater
rights for authors and performers through provisions for sharing royalties.
ii. Facilitation of Access: Special provisions that allow access to their copyrighted works
for individuals with visual impairments.
iii. Technological Protection Measures: Legal acknowledgment of digital rights
management (DRM), with protection against the circumvention of the same.
iv. Liability Under Online Intermediaries: Enactment of provisions for liability of online
platforms for hosting infringing content.

Contemporary Trends and Future Trajectories

India still has a balancing act with the copyright holders and the public. The issues of fair use,
copyright infringement, and access to knowledge continue to be at the crux of the debate.
Artificial intelligence, blockchain, and other emerging technologies will challenge and
possibly place greater demands on the copyright framework as the framework continues to
evolve. India's rich cultural heritage, with some evolving creative industries, suggests that it
requires a very strong and inclusive copyright regime. India is undergoing a very interesting
transition of copyright law from its colonial legacy to a modern, dynamic legal framework,
responding to the needs of balancing innovation, creativity, and access to the public.
 CHAPTER- 3 AI & COPYRIGHT
Any discussion on the meeting point of AI and IP would perforce start with an analysis of
copyrights and the application of copyrights within the Indian scenario. Copyright is legal
recognition that is accorded to the original creator of a work whereby he has exclusive rights
to use and distribute the work. In order to claim protection as a copyright under Indian law,
the work has to be tangible, original, innovative, and have some significant value additions to
the field.

In India, compared to other countries, development has comparatively been slow in this field
of information technology, especially in AI or negativism by the judiciary in such matters. AI
nowadays can produce literary works; subsequent registration of copyright is on the increase.
The traditional viewpoint of Indian jurisprudence did not treat the said works produced with
the medium of computers and networks as a subject of copyright but as a product of human
intervention.

In the leading case in the United States of Gilles Lithographic Co. v. Saron1, the Supreme
Court held that copyright would not extend to photographic works but could only attach with
mechanical labor. Subsequently, in Bleistein v. Donaldson2 Lithographing, the court held that
for copyright to attach, there must be the infusion of human personality. Later, however, in
Alfred Bell v. Catalda3, it was established that original does, in fact, mean a work is not to be
copied from other sources.

Quite belatedly, the legislative framework for information technology stressed its presence in
India in 2000, as the internet was already a world phenomenon of all these years since the late
1980s and early 1990s. The moot point now remains as to who should get the copyright
ownership of the works generated by AI. One way of sorting out this issue is by granting AI
legal personhood status and if that happens, then the interpretation to Section 12 of IPC,
1860, and the General Clauses Act have to be very wide.

As provided by Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Company4, in which the court
ruled that copyright protects, by linking 'work of authorship' to 'original intellectual labour',
emphasizing creativity. In Australia, the courts also apply a restrictive approach about

1
Gilles Lithographic Co. v. Saron, 111 U.S. 53, 4 S.Ct. 279, 28 L.Ed. 349
2
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing, 188 U.S. 239 (1903)
3
Alfred Bell v. Catalda, 191 F.2d 99 (1951)
4
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Company, 499 U.S. 340
copyright to the AI-generated works that do not have human authorship. As it was
demonstrated by Acohs Pty Ltd. v. UCorp Pty Ltd5.

The law of AI and copyright remains undefined; hence, a new framework needs to be
presented and adopted for such matters all to get addressed. The courts continue avoiding an
appreciation of AI or, for that matter, computer intervention in the given bundle of copyright
legislation; this has positioned the authors on the perceptible jeopardized threshold. However,
this same cannot be resounded for eternity, and there is a dire need to advance the degree and
scope to encompass AI in copyright legislation.

5
Acohs Pty Ltd. V. UCorp Pty Ltd, [2009] FCA 577
 CHAPTER- 4 CHALLENGES POSED BY AI TO COPYRIGHT LAW
Copyright law faces challenges with AI-generated works, particularly regarding authorship
and originality. Traditionally, an author is a person who creates a work through skill and
creativity. However, in AI-generated content, it's unclear who the author is — the
programmer, the user, or the AI itself. India’s Copyright Act states that for computer-
generated works, the "author" is the one who causes the work to be created, but this doesn’t
address cases where AI acts independently. Originality is another issue since copyright
usually protects human creativity, but AI-generated content is based on pre-existing data and
algorithms. AI-generated outputs also raise copyright infringement concerns. If AI creates
content that resembles copyrighted material, it must be determined if the AI had access to the
original work and whether the new creation is “substantially similar” to it. This includes
issues like mimicking an artist’s style or recreating copyrighted characters.In the U.S., the fair
use doctrine allows some uses of copyrighted material without permission based on purpose,
nature, amount, and market impact. While training AI models with copyrighted data may be
seen as fair use if it’s transformative, cases like Getty Images v. Stability AI show the
difficulties. Courts must balance copyright protection with innovation, considering
transformation, market effects, and technological safeguards.

4.1 Authorship and Originality:

Authorship and originality are central to copyright law, but AI-generated works create
significant challenges in these areas. Traditionally, the "author" is considered the person who
creates a work through their skill, labor, and originality. In the case of AI-generated works,
however, there is ambiguity about who qualifies as the author — the programmer, the user
providing inputs, or the AI system itself. Under India’s Copyright Act, 1957, for computer-
generated works, the "author" is defined as the person who causes the work to be created.
This interpretation could mean that the individual providing data or instructions to the AI is
considered the author. However, this approach does not fully address situations where the AI
operates autonomously or produces content with minimal human involvement. Originality is
another challenge. Copyright law generally protects works that involve human creativity. AI-
generated content, created using pre-existing data and algorithms, raises questions about
whether such works can meet the originality requirement. As AI technology continues to
evolve, clearer guidelines are needed to establish authorship and define originality in the
context of AI-generated works, ensuring that the rights of all stakeholders are appropriately
balanced6.

4.2 Infringement Concerns: Copyright Issues with AI-Generated Outputs

Generative AI can create works like images, texts, or music that sometimes resemble existing
copyrighted works. This raises questions about whether such outputs violate copyright laws.
Two main issues are whether the AI had access to the original work and whether the new
creation is "substantially similar" to it.To prove infringement, the first step is showing that the
AI had access to the copyrighted material. This often happens when the AI is trained using
publicly available data, including copyrighted works. If the original work was part of the
training data, it could be argued that the AI had access to it. The next step is determining if
the AI-generated output is "substantially similar" to the original work. Courts may look at
whether the two works share similar concepts, style, or specific details. For example, if an
AI-generated image closely mirrors a copyrighted photograph, it could be considered an
infringement. However, defining "substantial similarity" can be tricky and varies across legal
cases. Some outputs raise unique concerns. For example, AI can mimic an artist's style or
recreate fictional characters, potentially infringing copyright laws. While copying a style isn't
always illegal, using specific, protected elements like characters could lead to infringement
claims.Who is responsible for infringement—the user or the AI company—adds another layer
of complexity. Users might not know if an AI-generated output resembles a copyrighted
work. At the same time, AI companies could face legal challenges if their systems enable or
facilitate infringement.These unresolved questions show the need for clear rules about AI-
generated works. As courts and lawmakers tackle these issues, the line between innovation
and copyright protection will become clearer7.

4.3 Fair Use Doctrine and AI-Generated Content

The fair use doctrine is a cornerstone of U.S. copyright law, permitting certain uses of
copyrighted material without permission based on four factors: purpose and character of use,
nature of the copyrighted work, amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect
on the work’s market. With the rise of generative AI, this doctrine faces new challenges,

6
Dr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, AI-Generated Content and Copyright Law: Challenges and Adaptations in India,
www.ijamsr.com (June 29, 2024),
https://www.ijamsr.com/issues/6_Volume%203_Issue%2012/20240629_110951_3957.pdf accessed 7 december
2024.
7
Christopher T Zirpoli, Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law, crsreports.congress.gov (Sept. 29,
2023), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10922 accessed 8 december 2024.
particularly regarding the use of copyrighted works in AI training and the originality of AI-
generated outputs. Generative AI models like GPT-4 and Stable Diffusion rely on datasets
that often include copyrighted material. Courts evaluate whether such use is “transformative,”
meaning it adds new expression, meaning, or purpose rather than merely replicating the
original. In Authors Guild v. Google (2015), the court held that digitizing books for a
searchable database constituted fair use due to its transformative nature and public benefit.
Similarly, training AI models could be considered fair use if the process abstracts patterns
without reproducing or directly substituting the original works. However, recent cases
illustrate the complexities of fair use in AI. In Getty Images v. Stability AI, the plaintiffs
alleged that Stability AI's model reproduced watermarked images, raising concerns of direct
copying and market substitution. Conversely, proponents argue that AI models generally
generate novel outputs, aligning with copyright’s goal of fostering creativity. The
transformative nature of AI-generated outputs is critical. For instance, the Andy Warhol
Foundation v. Goldsmith (2023) case emphasized assessing market substitution and
transformation. AI-generated content resembling copyrighted works, such as artwork
imitating specific styles or characters, could infringe if it competes directly with the original
in the market. Fair use adjudication in the AI era thus requires balancing innovation and
copyright protections, with courts considering factors like transformation, market impact, and
technological safeguards8.

8
Matthew Sag, FAIRNESS AND FAIR USE IN GENERATIVE AI, www.law.berkeley.edu
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fairness-and-fair-use-by-Matthew-Sag.pdf accessed
8 december 2024.
 CHAPTER- 5 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH INTERNATIONAL
PERSPECTIVES
Different countries have unique approaches to AI and copyright. In the U.S., copyright
protection requires human authorship, as seen in the Naruto v. Slater case, but the fair use
doctrine allows flexibility for AI developers. The EU focuses on harmonizing laws across
member countries and encourages AI development through provisions like text and data
mining, allowing copyrighted material to train AI models. However, debates continue about
granting rights to AI developers or users. In China, copyright protection for AI-generated
works depends on human involvement, with ownership often determined by agreements that
favor users of the AI software. Enforcement remains difficult due to piracy.

India can learn from these global approaches to improve its copyright laws for AI-generated
content. Indian laws should highlight human creativity in AI creation, adopt international
standards with suitable adjustments, and clearly define ownership of AI-generated works.
Copyright laws should encourage innovation, ensuring fair recognition for creators while
motivating the use of AI tools. Public education about copyright and AI rights can also help
reduce misuse. By adopting a balanced approach, India can protect human creativity, support
technological progress, and become a leader in integrating AI-driven innovation with creative
industries.

5.1 Global Approaches to AI and Copyright

As AI technology grows, countries around the world are taking different approaches to
address copyright issues related to AI-generated works. While there are common themes,
such as the need for human involvement in copyright eligibility, each jurisdiction’s laws
reflect its unique priorities and legal traditions.

United States

In the U.S., copyright law requires works to be created by a human to qualify for protection.
This was emphasized in court cases like Naruto v. Slater, where even a monkey’s photograph
was deemed ineligible for copyright because it lacked human authorship. Similarly, AI-
generated works cannot receive copyright protection unless they involve significant human
creative input. However, the U.S. has a flexible "fair use" doctrine, which allows copyrighted
material to be used for purposes like research, education, and criticism. This flexibility is
helpful for AI developers, as it supports innovation and experimentation.
European Union (EU)

The EU has a more structured approach to copyright issues, focusing on harmonizing laws
across its member states. Although AI-generated works are not explicitly recognized under
current laws, the EU encourages innovation through specific provisions. For example, the
EU’s Copyright Directive of 2019 allows "text and data mining," enabling researchers to use
copyrighted material to train AI models without violating the law. While the EU hasn’t fully
addressed the question of AI authorship, debates are ongoing about granting limited rights to
developers or users of AI systems. The EU also emphasizes transparency by proposing that
AI-generated content be labeled to ensure accountability.

China

China’s approach is shaped by its emphasis on practical enforcement and innovation. Courts
in China have ruled that AI-generated works can receive copyright protection if there is
significant human involvement, such as editing or directing the process. However, purely
autonomous AI creations currently lack clear legal status. Ownership of AI-generated works
is often assigned based on agreements, typically favoring the user of the AI software.
Enforcement remains a challenge in China, given the prevalence of piracy and the high cost
of legal action.

Global Trends and Challenges

Across these regions, a shared trend is the importance of human creativity in determining
copyright eligibility. However, the U.S. emphasizes flexibility through fair use, the EU
prioritizes regulation and innovation through specific exceptions, and China focuses on
practical solutions to support its AI industry. Looking forward, international cooperation is
essential to address the global nature of AI and create balanced copyright laws. Standardizing
rules can help foster innovation while ensuring creators are fairly compensated9.

5.2 Lessons for India: The Impact of AI on Copyright Law

The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has created a pressing need to revisit and reform
copyright laws worldwide, including in India. As AI-generated content grows in importance,
India must adopt legal frameworks that balance technological advancements with the

9
Alesia Zhuk, Navigating the legal landscape of AI copyright: a comparative analysis of EU, US, and Chinese
approaches, link.springer.com (Nov. 8, 2023), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-023-00299-0
accessed 8 december 2024.
protection of human creativity. Here are key lessons and best practices to guide Indian law
reforms:

i. Recognize Human Involvement: Indian copyright law should emphasize human

creativity. A framework like the "Significant Human Input" test can be adopted,
requiring human involvement in the creation process to ensure that AI-generated
works meet the standards of originality under Indian law.
ii. Adapt International Standards: India can learn from countries like the US,
where copyright protection for AI-assisted works is granted if there is sufficient
human authorship. However, India should tailor these standards to its context,
maintaining a balance between innovation and fair protection for creators.
iii. Clarify Ownership: Indian law must clearly define who owns AI-generated
works. Developers, users, or prompt-givers? Current law leans toward the human
prompting or guiding the AI, but this needs explicit acknowledgment to reduce
disputes.
iv. Encourage Innovation: Copyright laws should not stifle AI adoption but
incentivize innovation. Granting copyright protection for works created with AI
assistance can motivate creators to use these tools effectively while ensuring fair
recognition of their contributions.
v. Public Awareness: Public education on copyright and AI can reduce misuse and
create awareness among creators about their rights.

India has the opportunity to position itself as a leader in adapting to AI's impact on creative
industries. A progressive yet balanced approach to copyright law reform will protect human
creativity while embracing AI-driven innovation10.

10
Harshal Chhabra, Balancing Indian Copyright Law with AI-Generated Content: The ‘Significant Human Input’
Approach, IJLT (Feb. 26, 2024), https://www.ijlt.in/post/balancing-indian-copyright-law-with-ai-generated-
content-the-significant-human-input-approach accessed 8 december 2024.
CHAPTER- 6 PROPOSED REFORMS FOR INDIAN COPYRIGHT LAW
The further development of artificial intelligence technologies, however, calls for major
challenges to be enframed into existing copyright law, not least within India. While artificial
intelligence is showing potential in the generation of creative content, be it art, music,
literature, or software, authorship and ownership redefinitions are being imprinted into the
whole concept of the production of outputs in diverse technical and commercial applications.
Historic and living Indian Copyright Act 1957 has been established to protect the legal rights
of human beings. However, it exists in being utterly inadequate to run all the tangles that it
introduces into AI-based works. Aside from potential threat to intellectual property rights, it
certainly limits the idea of innovativeness in an increasingly digital technologies.11

The urgent need for redefining laws related to authorship and originality must be addressed in
a world where an A.I. can produce material that is close to human creativity. The existing
copyright structure does not really cover the situation in which A.I. can take an active part in
creation leading to possible disputes about the ownership and accidental infringement of
copyright. Given the scenario that now arises and digital channels develop new methods for
sharing and distributing AI-generated content more widely, it is being made even complicated
regarding how creators and users perceive their rights and responsibilities in an emerging
legal context.

Therefore, there is an urgent requirement for sweeping reforms in India's copyright law.
These reforms should be such as would enable protection for human creators but also create
an environment for the encouragement of innovation and creativity in this age of AI. India
can construct such a legal framework that is in tune with the requirements of contemporary
digital culture by introducing a dedicated Digital Copyrights Act and simple standards for
copyright eligibility based on significant human input. Such a framework will clarify
authorship questions and improve the legal position of creators in an increasingly automated
environment. Accordingly, this paper suggests some specific reforms in Indian copyright law
which directly confront these challenges ensuring that it remains relevant, appropriate, and
effective in protecting not just rights of creators but also technological innovations.

11
Khaitan & Co., Intellectual Property Provisions of Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 Effective
from 1 August 2024, Compass Blog (2024), https://compass.khaitanco.com/intellectual-property-provisions-of-
jan-vishwas-amendment-of-provisions-act-2023-effective-from-1-august-2024 (last visited Dec. 11, 2024).
6.1 Need for a Digital Copyrights Act
The introduction of a Digital Copyrights Act (DCA) is essential to address the unique
challenges posed by AI technologies. The existing framework lacks specificity regarding
digital content and fails to account for the nuances of AI-generated works. As AI systems like
ChatGPT and others increasingly contribute to creative processes, the question of authorship
and ownership becomes murky.12 Current laws do not adequately cover scenarios where AI
plays a substantial role in creation, leading to potential disputes over copyright ownership and
infringement.13

A dedicated DCA would provide a robust legal framework that acknowledges the digital
nature of contemporary creative works. It could establish clear guidelines for the protection
of digital content, focusing on responsibility, transparency, and accountability for developers
of AI technologies.14 Furthermore, it would enhance the legal standing of creators by
ensuring that their rights are preserved in an increasingly automated environment.15 This act
could also redefine intermediary liability, addressing concerns about how platforms hosting
AI-generated content manage copyright issues.

6.2 Significant Human Input Test

To navigate the complexities of AI-generated content, a Significant Human Input Test should
be proposed as a criterion for copyright eligibility. This framework would require that any
work claiming copyright protection must demonstrate substantial human involvement in its
creation process. The rationale behind this test is to ensure that copyright remains tied to
human creativity and originality, which are core tenets of intellectual property law.16

12
Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property Rights, Navigating Indian Copyright Framework in the Age of AI-
Generated Works, NLIU, https://csipr.nliu.ac.in/miscellaneous/navigating-indian-copyright-framework-in-the-
age-of-ai-generated-works/(last visited Dec. 11, 2024).
13
Law School Policy Review, Need for a Digital Copyrights Act: Adjusting to the New Normal, (Feb. 12, 2024),
https://lawschoolpolicyreview.com/2024/02/12/need-for-a-digital-copyrights-act-adjusting-to-the-new-
normal/ (last visited Dec. 11, 2024).
14
Radhika Ghosh, Navigating Indian Copyright Framework in the Age of AI-Generated Works, CENTRE FOR
STUDY OF IPR, https://csipr.nliu.ac.in/miscellaneous/navigating-indian-copyright-framework-in-the-age-of-ai-
generated-works/ (last visited Dec. 11, 2024).
15
Aditi Verma, Need for a Digital Copyrights Act: Adjusting to the New Normal, LAW SCHOOL POLICY REVIEW
(Feb. 12, 2024), https://lawschoolpolicyreview.com/2024/02/12/need-for-a-digital-copyrights-act-adjusting-to-
the-new-normal/.
16
Dinesh Kumar & Vikas Kumar, Balancing Indian Copyright Law with AI-Generated Content: The Significant
Human Input Approach, INDIAN J. L. & TECH., https://www.ijlt.in/post/balancing-indian-copyright-law-with-ai-
generated-content-the-significant-human-input-approach (last visited Dec. 11, 2024).
Under this proposed test, works generated predominantly by AI without significant human
intervention would not qualify for copyright protection. This approach strikes a balance
between fostering innovation through AI while safeguarding the rights of human creators. It
also addresses ethical concerns regarding authorship and originality in an era where AI can
produce content that closely mimics human creativity.17 By implementing this test, India can
create a more equitable landscape for both human creators and AI developers.

6.3 Recommendations for Legislative Changes

To effectively accommodate AI-generated works within the Indian copyright framework,
several specific amendments are necessary:

i. Clarification of Authorship: Amend Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act to

explicitly define authorship in cases where AI plays a significant role. This
amendment should clarify that if an AI system generates content with minimal human
input, such works may not be eligible for copyright protection.
ii. Revising Fair Use Provisions: Update Section 52 to include explicit provisions
addressing the use of AI-generated content.18 This could involve defining what
constitutes fair use in the context of transformative uses enabled by AI technologies,
thereby providing clearer guidelines for users and creators alike.19
iii. Intermediary Responsibilities: Introduce provisions that hold digital platforms
accountable for managing copyright issues related to user-generated content.20 This
includes establishing mechanisms for reporting and resolving copyright disputes
efficiently while protecting user rights.21
iv. Create a new office to handle AI disputes in Copyright Office: Create a new office
under the Copyright Office specifically to deal with disputes that arise from AI-

17
Dinesh Kumar & Vikas Kumar, Balancing Indian Copyright Law with AI-Generated Content: The Significant
Human Input Approach, INDIAN J. L. & TECH., https://www.ijlt.in/post/balancing-indian-copyright-law-with-ai-
generated-content-the-significant-human-input-approach (last visited Dec. 11, 2024).
18
Abhishek Malhotra, Gen AI Copyright Law in India: Reproduction, Adaptation, and Implications, MEDIANAMA
(July 2024), https://www.medianama.com/2024/07/223-gen-ai-copyright-law-india-reproduction-adaptation/.
19
Prashant Reddy, Indian Copyright Law and Generative AI - Part 2: Transformative and Extractive Use, IP
REMEDIES & TECHNOLOGY LAW, https://iprmentlaw.com/2024/05/29/indian-copyright-law-and-generative-ai-
part-2-transformative-and-extractive-use/ (last visited Dec. 11, 2024).
20
Aditi Verma, Need for a Digital Copyrights Act: Adjusting to the New Normal, LAW SCHOOL POLICY REVIEW
(Feb. 12, 2024), https://lawschoolpolicyreview.com/2024/02/12/need-for-a-digital-copyrights-act-adjusting-to-
the-new-normal/.
21
Radhika Ghosh, Navigating Indian Copyright Framework in the Age of AI-Generated Works, CENTRE FOR
STUDY OF IPR, https://csipr.nliu.ac.in/miscellaneous/navigating-indian-copyright-framework-in-the-age-of-ai-
generated-works/ (last visited Dec. 11, 2024).
 generated works. It would include guidance in the compliance with new rules, fast
track dispute resolution procedures, and generally facilitate process around the all-
new world of AI-generated works and rights.
v. Incentives for Humans-Sensitive Creation: Create incentive programs for those
who put significant human input along with AI tools into their creations. These might
be directly grants to the producer or ongoing tax benefits aimed at promotion of
creation that focuses on a more human approach paired with technological
advancements.
vi. Educational Initiatives: Set up educational campaigns to sensitize both creators and
users on their rights and obligations under the new laws on AI-generated content.

The ever-changing paradigm of technology renders urgent reforms in India's copyright law
that adequately safeguard both innovation and the creators' rights from the advancing AI. A
fully-fledged Digital Copyrights Act and Sensible Human Input Test can clear the areas of
authorship and allow creativity to take place within a moving run towards technological
advancement at the same time. Implementing this set of recommendations will position India
as a torch-bearing country in innovating the intellectual property laws to suit the modern-day
challenges posed by digital technologies and artificial intelligence.
 CONCLUSION
Generative AI is now very rapidly developed and very much a part of modern innovation.
The changes within itself have affected creativity and technology over the last decade. With
big tech giants' continuous investment in such space, such as Google and Amazon, the
importance of AI in invention and creativity has only grown. However, at present, India's
copyright laws appear to be struggling on the grounds of age-old laws that were primarily
meant to protect human authorship; example- the Copyright Act of 1957 proves to be the
bedrock for India's copyright scenario but fails to clarify ownership in the event of works
created by AI leaving them in a legal gray zone.

However, the position of India is that it is placed in a rather unique threshold at present. It
allows India to lead in the creation of an AI-centric copyright regime that could be a model
for the rest of the nations. This research wants to show that AI-created works could be,
actually, within the framework of consideration of copyright under significant human input
over its development. It can also be said that they meet the criteria of originality relevant
under Indian law for copyrighting. Moreover, being based on previous published works does
not mean that AI-generated works are not original, provided that they add some new
transformational content. So far, the approach of decision-makers on this issue is unclear.
Nevertheless, optimism is present that the progressive Indian way of thinking will allow users
to claim copyright protection for works that are produced entirely through AI. This decision
would not only create a safety net for the global innovators and creators but also make India
relatively well-placed internationally, vis-à-vis innovation, in the next ten years.

Dramatic changes need to be made in Indian copyright law to allow inclusion of AI in their
framework because of the significant impact AI could have on the actual copyright law. The
reform needs to be comprehensive, addressing among other things the fact of AI-generated
works-the requirements should follow to what end the law would be for works of AI and to
whom ownership and right will belong. One approach to this would be to bear in mind the
copyright protection to be given for AI objects if and when a threshold level of human
involvement is achieved in the process of creating the object. This makes a valuable argument
for both human contributors and AI technology under the new development within the realm
of innovation and protection of intellectual property.

In addition, India now has to formulate laws that will govern the usage of copyrighted works
in the training of AI. Such laws must explicitly spell out the extent of fair use and create
standards on how one may seek permission to use copyrighted work for training. It must be
made sure that proceedings in AI development are done justly and ethically and at the same
time safeguard original rights of content owners.

On the whole, it must come down to the reason for an equitable copyright system that
supports creativity and encourages innovation. India should immediately reform its copyright
laws in order to provide a legal framework where technological and human talents can work
well together. A sunshine on AI-employers will not only benefit AI-coders and developers but
also the wider creative economy, thus ensuring that the benefits of AI are shared keeping in
mind the integrity of intellectual property. Modernizing copyright law is more than necessary-
enhancing it will be indispensable in placing India as a global frontrunner in innovation and
AI creativity.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
WEBSITES REFERRED TO:

 AI and Copyright: How Artificial Intelligence Challenges the Concept of Intellectual

Property, Built In (Oct. 22, 2024), https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright.

 Artificial Intelligence and Copyright, WIPO Magazine (Oct. 22, 2024),

https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-
40141.

 Artificial Intelligence and Copyright in India, BytesCare (Oct. 22, 2024),

https://bytescare.com/blog/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-in-india.

 Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Issues, Legal Service India (Oct. 22, 2024),
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9895-artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-
issues.html.

 Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law, Lexology (Oct. 22, 2024),

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d32f6864-e555-4acd-ae76-cfd9d558f44e.

 Artificial Intelligence and the Conundrum of Copyright, Juris Centre (Nov. 25, 2023),
https://juriscentre.com/2023/11/25/artificial-intelligence-and-the-conundrum-of-copyright/.

 Artificial Intelligence & Intellectual Property: Indian Copyright Act, LiveLaw (Oct. 22,
2024), https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/artificial-intelligence-intellectual-
property-indian-copyright-act-singhania-co-llp-238401.

 Balancing Indian Copyright Law with AI-Generated Content: The Significant Human Input
Approach, IJLT (Oct. 22, 2024), https://www.ijlt.in/post/balancing-indian-copyright-law-
with-ai-generated-content-the-significant-human-input-approach.

 ChatGPT, AI Content: All About Legal Challenges Pertaining to Copyright Under Indian
Law, Business Today (Sept. 22, 2023),
https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/chatgpt-ai-content-all-about-legal-
challenges-pertaining-to-copyright-under-indian-law-399393-2023-09-22.

 Critical Analysis of AI and Copyright Protection, iPleaders (Oct. 22, 2024),

https://blog.ipleaders.in/critical-analysis-of-ai-and-copyright-protection/.

 Exploring the Nexus Between Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Act 1956, IIPRD (Oct.
22, 2024), https://www.iiprd.com/exploring-the-nexus-between-artificial-intelligence-and-
copyright-act-1956/.

 How AI Is Revolutionizing the Music Industry’s Approach to Copyright Law, United and
United (Oct. 22, 2024), https://www.unitedandunited.com/how-ai-is-revolutionizing-the-
music-industrys-approach-to-copyright-law/.
 Intersection of Intellectual Property Rights & AI-Generated Works: Part I, Bar & Bench
(Oct. 22, 2024), https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/intersection-
intellectual-property-rights-ai-generated-works-part-i.

 Legal Implications of AI-Created Works in India, Mondaq (Oct. 22, 2024),

https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348418/legal-implications-of-ai-created-works-
in-india.

 The Legal Implications of AI-Generated Content in Copyright Law, IndiaAI (Oct. 22,
2024), https://indiaai.gov.in/article/the-legal-implications-of-ai-generated-content-in-
copyright-law.

ACADEMIC JOURNALS REFERRED TO:

 Rishabh Sharma, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright in India: A Socio-Legal Perspective,

5 RGNUL Student Research Review 1, 10 (2019).

 Abhishek Kumar, The Dilemma of Copyright Law and Artificial Intelligence in India, 12 J.
Intell. Prop. L. & Prac. 123, 130 (2020).

 Priya Singh, Balancing Indian Copyright Law with AI-Generated Content: The Significant
Human Input Approach, 8 Indian J. Intell. Prop. L. 45, 50 (2021).

 Neha Gupta, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Issues and Challenges, 15 J. Copyright
Soc'y India 78, 80 (2022).

 Anjali Verma, Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright Laws in the Regime of Artificial
Intelligence in India, 4 GNLU L. Rev. 101, 105 (2023).

BOOKS REFERRED TO:

 Rachael K. H. Lee, Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (Springer, 2020).

 Paul Torremans, Copyright Law and Artificial Intelligence: A Global Perspective
(Edward Elgar Publ'g, 2021).
 Jonathan M. Barnett, The Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Handbook (Oxford Univ.
Press, 2022).
 David J. H. Sutherland, AI and Copyright: The Future of Creativity (Cambridge Univ.
Press, 2023).