Ownership of AI generated content. A Deep Dive into Copyright Law in India

Introduction

The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized content creation. AI tools are being used in nearly every creative field ranging from writing articles and composing music to generating artwork and even code. But this leap brings with it a critical legal question of the ownership of content created by AI? Is it the AI itself, the person who provided the prompt, or the sources from which the AI has learned?

Understanding Copyright

In India, the Copyright Act, 1957 provides protection to original works under Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act of 1957. The section reads as follows:

1.       The author of a literary or dramatic work shall be the author.

2.      In musical works, the composer is the author.

3.      In artistic works, the artist is the author.

4.      The author of a photograph is the person who takes the photograph.

5.      The producer of a cinematographic film is the author.

6.      The author of a sound recording shall be the producer of such sound recording.

Though not mentioned explicitly, the interpretation of this section, while reading “author” has always rested on the idea of a human author, i.e, a legal, natural person.

Can AI Be an Author Under Indian Law?

The simple answer? No.

Indian copyright law does not recognize AI as a legal person and copyright can only be owned by individuals, companies, or other legal entities recognized by law. AI, regardless of its capabilities, is still considered a tool or instrument.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

In Stephen L Thaler v. Comptroller General of Patents^[1] famously known as the DABUS^[2] Case decided by the High Court of England and Wales, Special Patents Court The Appellant had filed for ownership of patents, in the name of the AI DABUS as the inventor. The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) denied his application and he appealed in front of the High Court, which upheld the decision of IPO. The reason was that a machine cannot be held as an owner due to it not being a legal person.

In 2021 India provided co-authoriship to an AI named RAGHAV^[3] which, along with its inventor Ankit Sahni created an art piece named “Suryast”. Suryast was basically a photograph of a sunset taken by Mr. Sahni himself which was later recreated as Vincent Van Gogh's Starry Night by the AI. After being denied by the USCO^[4], Mr. Sahni filed for the co-authorship of the AI in front of Intellectual Property Offices of various countries, including India, which granted it a co-authorship. The application status is still displayed as ‘registered’ on the website of the copyright office, but the court is yet to decide on this issue.

Ownership of Original Sources

AI models are trained on vast datasets pulled from the internet and various databases. However, usually these models generate new, transformative content based on patterns in the data, rather than directly copying it. Unless the generated content substantially replicates a copyrighted work, the original data sources generally do not have any copyright claim over the AI's output.

The Supreme Court while dealing with the concept of “originality” under the Copyright Act, 1957 in the case of Eastern Book Company and Ors. v. D.B. Modak, decided that in order to copyright a certain work, a degree of originality and intellectual effort is necessary to be demonstrated. Simply using a computer to edit a few parts of an already existing work does not make one  an author within the Act and thereby does not give them a copyright.

Ownership of the Prompt Giver

When a human provides a prompt to an AI tool—especially a detailed or structured prompt—they’re initiating a creative process.

The key criteria are:

●      Originality: The work must originate from the author and show minimal creativity.

●      Skill and judgment: There must be intellectual effort involved, not just mechanical labor.

So, if the person giving the prompt has exercised skill, judgment, or creativity in shaping the final output, they may be considered the author under Indian law.

India’s Position on AI

Currently Indian copyright law does not explicitly contain provisions for AI-generated content. However, now that AI surrounds us in every way, courts and policymakers are beginning to engage with it.

This means the user of the tool, not the tool itself, would be considered the author—provided the user's contribution meets the originality threshold.

In the case of R.G. Anand v. Delux Films^[5] the appellant had filed a case against the respondant contending that the respondent had stolen a play authored and copyrighted by the appellant for his film. The Supreme Court decided that though the essence of both these artworks remain the same, the latter's work cannot be deemed stolen as his expression of it is different. The Court clarified that copyright is not granted for ideas, but only for the expression of ideas. In the context of AI, this case suggests that if the human user  contributes original expression through the prompt or the iterative process, they may hold copyright on the resulting work.

Conclusion: Who Should Get the Copyright?

In the current Indian legal context:

i) The AI itself cannot hold copyright.ii) The original data sources do not usually have a claim unless there’s direct copying.iii) The prompt-giver may hold copyright if their input reflects creativity

Given the current landscape—the usage of AI for creating artworks becoming mainstream and the global discussion surrounding it, it would be soon that the courts in India also start to clearly define the authorship of content created by AI and its subsequent ownership. Until then, the person giving the prompt behind the AI is the best candidate for authorship.

As AI continues to gradually shift  the future of creativity, the law will inevitably have to evolve. For now, the best approach is to treat AI as an assistant rather than a creator and ensure that human input is central to the creative process.

Author: Tanishka Sinha, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney. 

References

https://livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/artificial-intelligence-intellectual-property-indian-copyright-act-singhania-co-llp-238401

https://drishtijudiciary.com/intellectual-property-rights/eastern-book-company-v-d-b-modak-2008-36-ptc-1-sc

https://houstonlawreview.org/article/92132-what-is-an-author-copyright-authorship-of-ai-art-through-a-philosophical-lens

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=125721

^[1] [2020] EWHC 2412 (Pat)

^[2] Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience

^[3] Robust Artificially Intelligent Graphics and Art Visualizer

^[4] United States Copyright Office

^[5] AIR 1978 SC 1613