Artificial Intelligence(AI) is no longer just a tool, it is creating poems, films, artworks, and even computer code. But when machines create, a serious legal question arises, who owns these creations? The answer is unsettled in India, where copyright law is still built on the assumption of a human author. Copyright law in India, governed by the Copyright Act, 1957, protects original works of authorship, including literary, artistic, dramatic, and musical works. Traditionally, human creators were the recognized authors of these works but however, the rise of AI challenges this traditional notion, as AI tools now have the ability to create content independently, raising the question of who holds the copyright to AI-generated works. According to Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957, “author” means, 

(i)in relation to a literary or dramatic work, the author of the work;

(ii)in relation to a musical work, the composer;

(iii)in relation to an artistic work other than a photograph, the artist;

(iv)in relation to a photograph, the person taking the photograph;

(v) in relation to a cinematograph film or sound recording, the producer; and

(vi)in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created;

In short, “author” is defined as a person who creates the work, which typically implies a human creator. As AI lacks legal personhood, it cannot hold a copyright in India. Consequently, the question of ownership of AI-generated works falls to the human user or creator who employed the AI tool. However, the law remains uncertain on whether AI-generated works, which lack direct human authorship, can be protected under Indian copyright law.

Although Section 2 (d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides some scope for AI-related works, yet it raises ambiguity:

  • If a user inputs a prompt into an AI image generator, is the user the “author”?
  • If the AI model was trained by a company, can that company assert rights?
  • If the AI independently generates content without significant human input, is the work copyrightable at all?

The recent case of ANI Media v. OpenAI (CS(COMM) 1028/2024) highlights these challenges. ANI alleged that OpenAI unlawfully used its news content, including material behind paywalls, to train ChatGPT, and that the model even produced outputs falsely attributed to the agency. This case raises critical questions: does storing and using such content for AI training constitute copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957, or can it be justified under the “fair dealing” provision in Section 52? Further, to what extent can Indian courts exercise jurisdiction when the AI infrastructure is located overseas?

These unresolved issues underline the urgent need for India to clarify authorship and ownership of AI-generated works. Policymakers may need to consider amendments to the Copyright Act to explicitly define:

  • Who qualifies as the author of AI-generated content,
  • Whether ownership lies with the AI user or the AI developer, and
  • How moral rights and licensing interact with AI-created works.

Recent interventions by the Bombay High Court in protecting the personality rights of celebrities such as Suniel Shetty and Arijit Singh show that courts are increasingly linking moral rights under the Copyright Act with personality rights. While these cases primarily address identity and likeness misuse, they highlight how copyright principles could be interpreted to protect both human authors and individuals whose personality is incorporated into AI-generated works.

As AI-generated content becomes more sophisticated, India must ensure that legal clarity around authorship, ownership, and liability keeps pace with technology but as for now, ownership of AI-generated works in India is uncertain. Users may claim rights when their input involves creative choices, but courts have not yet settled the issue. In the absence of legislative clarity, many AI outputs may fall into the public domain, leaving businesses and creators vulnerable.

As India prepares its next movement of copyright reforms, the challenge will be to strike a balance between incentivising innovation and safeguarding human creativity.

 

By Amrita Chowdhury