Research Note on Topic:

An overview of the key legal developments in the global AI and Intellectual

Property space - since January 2025.

INTRODUCTION

Artificial Intelligence has come into being as a disruptive technology reshaping many facets of human activity-from
healthcare to finance, art to entertainment. Probably one of the deepest challenges arising out of AI pertains to Intellectual
Property laws since, today, AI systems are capable of independent elicitation of several works that traditionally would have
been subject to the IP regime-and some of these might include literature, music, works of art, inventions, and software code.

AI generated works are now contradicting these core IP concepts of authorship, originality, ownership, and infringement.
For instance, who is the rightful owner of a painting fully created by an AI? Could an AI be legally deemed an "author" or an
"inventor," considering the law revolves around human creators? How can we safeguard original works when AI models are
trained on large datasets that often include copyrighted content? Forced by such questions, courts, legislatures, and
policymakers across the world have had to reconsider and amend IP laws to address this new paradigm of AI-generated
artworks.

Since the start of 2025, there have been several promising changes in various jurisdictions through landmark judgments,
legislation, or regulatory frameworks addressing the above-stated complex issues. This advisory note provides a detailed
analysis of these important global developments, with particular emphasis on those in India, and discusses how the laws are
evolving in an attempt to balance innovation along with the protection of creators' rights.

2. Global Legal Developments in AI and IP

Legislative Reforms

United Kingdom:

The UK has been at the forefront of regulating AI in the IP context. In mid-2025, amendments were
made to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, requiring that AI companies disclose information
regarding the datasets used in training their models. Such legislative reform requires that
companies disclose the origin of their training data if copyrighted works are involved, thus placing
the onus on them to ensure licensing of those works. These changes redress a concern expressed
by many creators and copyright holders about the unauthorized exploitation of their works, so that
they may indeed be recognized and fairly remunerated.
The legislation also bolsters enforcement by allowing rights holders to seek injunctions or damages
against the illegal use of their content in training AI. The UK endeavors to navigate this fine line,
fostering AI innovation while simultaneously safeguarding the economic interests of content
creators.

EUROPEAN UNION

The European Union remains a leader in aligning AI and intellectual property laws. Building on its 2024 adoption of the
Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on AI and Human Rights, several member states introduced new national laws
in 2025. These laws require AI developers to get clear, opt-in consent before using copyrighted materials in training datasets.

These changes protect creators’ moral and economic rights while encouraging ethical AI development that respects the
fundamental rights outlined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The EU also focuses on data privacy, transparency,
and giving users control over AI systems. It is leading the way with rules that demand AI decisions be explainable and ban
discriminatory AI practices.

UNITED STATES

In the US, the law scene stays active but less strict than in the EU or UK. The U.S.
The Copyright. Office has reiterated its position that creations without human authorship are not eligible for copyright.
Nevertheless, in 2025, lawmakers concentrate on creating unique rights for AI-created content.

Congress has thoroughly discussed the advantages and dangers of giving IP rights to AI-created works, weighing the encour
agement for new ideas against worries about market control and limited access to creative resources. Meanwhile, the U.S. Th
e Patent and Trademark Office is considering revisions to patent review rules for inventions helped by AI.

LANDMARK COURT CASES

Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (United States):

Thomson Reuters has sued Ross Intelligence in a high-profile litigation claiming Ross Intelligence has made an illegal use of
thousands of hours of Thomson Reuters databases of proprietary legal databases and trained the Ross AI legal research tool
on it. After considering the evidence presented, the ruling went with Thomson Reuters and the court found that the copying
of the whole database without any agreement or authorization created an infringement of their copyright and it was not
protected under the doctrine of fair use.

The ruling also made a distinction that, even arguments regarding transformational use have limitations when the entire
dataset is copied and used for commercial use. This sets precedent and re-emphasizes the need for license rights in datasets
used in which AI is trained and emphasized when incorporating AI for commercial use.

Getty Images v. Stability AI (United Kingdom):

Getty Images filed a lawsuit against Stability AI for allegedly training its Stable Diffusion AI model on millions of
copyrighted images, without any authorization from Getty, through unauthorized scrapping of images from Getty's archives.
This case is being watched closely because of its potential to set global standards for the permissible use of copyrighted
materials in the creation of datasets for AI training.

If the court rules in favour of Getty, it could impose strict licensing requirements on AI developers and fundamentally alter
the economics of access to data, potentially raising the costs of AI training and enhancing fairness and compensation for
creators.

3. Indian Legal Landscape

3.1 Major Court Cases

ANI v. OpenAI (Delhi High Court):

In a significant case, Asian News International (ANI) alleged that OpenAI’s ChatGPT used ANI’s copyrighted news content
without permission, producing AI-generated outputs that paraphrased or copied ANI’s reporting. The Delhi High Court ruled
that ANI was entitled to interim relief, indicating that the use of AI-trained data must be considered from both ethical and
legal perspectives.

This case has sparked debate in India about issues surrounding AI, data ownership, and whether any existing copyright law
would apply to provide adequate governance for generative AI. The case serves to underscore the relationship between
innovation and media rights, and the overall issue of ensuring coherent and consistent legal frameworks for the entire sector.

T-Series & Saregama v. OpenAI:

T-Series and Saregama, India’s prominent music labels, have jointly filed suit against OpenAI for using their copyrighted
music tracks in AI training datasets without original express permission and compensation. They are seeking clarity on how
the AI model accessed and used their content, and are promoting fair licensing and algorithmic accountability.

This lawsuit is meaningful within the context of India's evolving digital rights landscape, as it emphasizes the importance of
Indian IP owners controlling their works in a world of increasing AI influence.

Anil Kapoor & Arijit Singh v. AI Platforms:

Bollywood actor Anil Kapoor and singer Arijit Singh were both able to obtain injunction from the courts prohibiting the use
of their likeness and voices to create unauthorized deepfakes or voice reproductions, from AI platforms. The courts
determined that these constituted breaches of privacy and personality rights under Indian laws, thereby establishing legal
protection against AI-generated digital impersonation.

These decisions illustrate a developing judicial awareness of the distinct challenges to an individual’s dignity and identity
generated by AI.

3.2 Legislative and Policy Developments

AI Safety Institute (2025):

In 2025, India established the AI Safety Institute under the Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology, to govern the ethical development and deployment of AI technologies and
applications. The Institute will recommend legal changes that include updating copyright and data
protection laws to ensure.

that AI systems respect creators’ rights and privacy.

The Institute also works with international organizations to align Indian AI policies to international
ethical standards and advocate for safe innovation.

Draft Digital India AI Regulations Bill:

The Draft AI Regulations Bill was released for public consultation in April 2025, and requires
companies to provide transparency regarding their AI training datasets, ensure audit capabilities
for AI decisions, and create capability to detect infringements of intellectual property. Furthermore,
the Draft AI Regulations Bill will allow a regulatory authority to examine and impose penalties for AI
developers who use copyrighted material without authorization.

This will be India's first national regulation that seeks to comprehensively manage AI development,
and should provide a framework for subsequent interactions regarding AI and IP.

Public Interest Litigation on AI Misuse:

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was introduced in January 2025, in the Supreme Court seeking
amendments to India's Copyright Act to clarify matters concerning the authorship of works created
by AI and obligate developers to mitigate the unlawful infringement of copyrighted materials. The
PIL has already moved the government much more quickly to examine amendments and updates
to IP law, to fit within the realities of AI.

4. Global and Indian Case Studies

4.1 Global Case Studies

Spain: Criminalizing Deepfakes

Spain is leading the way for legislation to criminalize unauthorized creation of deepfake videos and images, particularly
those used to impersonate someone, or for other disinformation purposes. Proposed laws are steep to deter anyone from
maliciously using AI technologies that threaten privacy, security, and reputational harm.

This move is a response to an evolution of state intervention to threats around the world for AI-enabled disinformation and
identity theft.

Germany: Photographer v. LAION

A German photographer brought action against LAION, a dataset curator of open-source AI, alleging it used his copyrighted
images scraped from the internet without authorization to train its AI models. This case is significant in shaping the use, if
any, of copyright exceptions or fair use in the context of large-scale AI dataset aggregation, particularly in Europe.

The decision could impact the way many AI developers and dataset aggregators operate.

4.2 Indian Case Studies

RAGHAV AI Artwork Registration

The AI-generated artwork "RAGHAV" did not receive copyright registration in India initially because it lacked human
authorship. When a human co-collaborator was identified and acknowledged, the artwork received a copyright registration
that affirmed the legal agency that Indian copyright law protects only human creativity.

Navigators Logistics Ltd. v. Kashif Qureshi

In this case, the Delhi High Court held that automated compilations of data generated solely through software algorithms did
not meet the originality requirement for copyright. The decision confirms that copyright law cannot be used to monopolize
simple mechanized compilations of data.

5. Analysis and Implications

The legal environment, as of January 2025, demonstrates cautious but developing global consensus: IP rights have a human
dimension, and AI-produced works that lack human innovation shouldn't be afforded the same protection as "owned"
creative works. Courts commonly advocate for original creators who are victimized by unauthorized use of their works as
training images, prioritizing transparency and responsibility.
6. Future Directions for Legal Frameworks

 Sui Generis Rights: Different countries can enact sui generis (unique) legal rights for AI-
generated works that does not fit existing copyright or patent regimes.

 Extended Moral Rights: Protection against the unauthorized digital impersonation and
misuse of personality rights.

 Dataset Licensing Registries: Single sites to license data and works from copyright holders
for AI training, to increase transparency and fairness.

 AI Ethics Boards: National and regional bodies to facilitate ethical AI development and to
resolve disputes.

 International Harmonization: Updating treaties at WIPO and fostering international

cooperation to establish uniform standards for AI-IP.

7. Conclusion

Creative AI is changing intellectual property law. Protecting human creators while allowing the creation of AI must involve
adaptable laws. India, along with other partners, is now developing the new law norms, offering a way to balance both the
needs of progress with respecting creator rights and privacy.

Case Law Citations

 Global Cases

1. Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence Inc.,

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:20-cv-00613 (2025)
(Ongoing – cited in relation to fair use and AI training data.)

2. Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.,

High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts, UK (2025)
(Pending – concerning unauthorized image dataset use for AI training.)

 Indian Cases

1. Asian News International (ANI) v. OpenAI Inc.,

2025 SCC OnLine Del 2346
(Delhi High Court – interim relief granted for unauthorized use of ANI news data.)

2. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (T-Series) & Saregama India Ltd. v. OpenAI Inc.,
2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1980
(Bombay High Court – seeking injunction over unlicensed use of music in AI.)

3. Anil Kapoor v. Unknown AI Platforms,

2025 SCC OnLine Del 2602
(Delhi High Court – injunction granted against use of actor’s face via deepfake AI.)

4. Arijit Singh v. AI Media Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

2025 SCC OnLine Cal 1160
(Calcutta High Court – injunction against AI-generated music cloning voice.)

5. Navigators Logistics Ltd. v. Kashif Qureshi,

(2018) 246 DLT 264
(Delhi High Court – relied upon for clarification on non-original data compilation.)
Legislation and Government Policies

1. UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Amended 2025)

(Incorporating AI-related dataset transparency obligations.)

2. European Union Artificial Intelligence (Transparency in Training) Directive 2025

(Implemented through member state national laws; not yet consolidated in Eur-Lex.)

1. U.S. Copyright Office Guidance on AI Authorship,

Circular 3 (Updated January 2025)
Available at: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf

3. Draft Digital India Artificial Intelligence (Ethical Development and Use) Bill, 2025
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), India
Public Consultation Paper, April 2025

4. Establishment of the AI Safety Institute (India)

Notification No. 19(5)/2025-AI/MeitY dated 12 February 2025

Academic and Policy Articles

1. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO),

"Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence: A Global Perspective on IP Rights and AI,"
WIPO Research Paper No. 75/2025

2. European Parliament Research Service (EPRS),

"AI and Intellectual Property: Legal Approaches across the EU,"
Policy Brief, April 2025. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/eprs

3. NALSAR University of Law (Hyderabad),

“Personality Rights in the Age of Generative AI,”
Indian Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 21, Issue 1 (2025)

4. Oxford Internet Institute – Policy Review,

“Generative AI and Copyright: Towards a Fair Use Future?”
Published March 2025, DOI: 10.1093/oii/genai0525

Miscellaneous / Media Reports Cited

1. The Hindu (March 2025),

“Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief to ANI Against OpenAI,”
Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/delhi-hc-ani-vs-openai/

2. Bar & Bench (April 2025),

“T-Series, Saregama Move Bombay HC Against OpenAI Over Music Dataset,”
Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/

3. Financial Times (UK) (May 2025),

“Getty Images Case May Reshape Global Copyright Use in AI,”
Accessed via FT Tech Policy Section

4. LiveLaw India (January 2025),

“Public Interest Litigation Filed Seeking Amendments to Copyright Act for AI Governance,”
Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/