Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has evolved from a supplementary technological aid into a sophisticated autonomous system capable of independently generating literary, artistic, musical, and audiovisual works without continuous human intervention.¹ This transformation represents a significant departure from earlier forms of mechanised assistance and poses a direct challenge to the foundational principles of copyright law, which have traditionally been premised on human creativity, intellectual labour, and conscious expression. As AI-generated outputs increasingly resemble human-authored works in both form and substance, the distinction between human and machine creativity has become progressively blurred.
Indian copyright law, governed by the Copyright Act, 1957, does not expressly recognise artificial intelligence as a legal author, nor does it provide clear guidance on the copyrightability of works generated autonomously by machines.² The statutory framework was enacted in an era when machines functioned merely as passive tools under human control, and it therefore lacks the conceptual vocabulary to address autonomous creative systems. This legislative silence has resulted in legal uncertainty regarding authorship, ownership, originality, and the applicability of moral rights in relation to AI-generated works.
This paper critically examines whether authorship can meaningfully exist in the absence of a human creator and whether AI-generated works can satisfy the doctrinal requirements of originality and creative expression under Indian copyright law. It analyses statutory provisions, judicial interpretations, and the originality threshold developed by Indian courts, with particular emphasis on the centrality of human skill, labour, and judgment. The paper further explores the implications of recognising or denying copyright protection to AI-generated works, including concerns relating to economic incentives, monopolisation of machine-generated content, and the erosion of copyright’s philosophical foundations.
Through a comparative study of international approaches, including those adopted in the United States and the United Kingdom, the paper satuates the Indian position within the broader global discourse on AI and intellectual property. Ultimately, it argues that Indian copyright jurisprudence remains firmly anchored in the principle of human authorship and that fully autonomous AI-generated works presently fall outside the scope of copyright protection.³ The paper concludes by emphasising the need for legislative clarity to address emerging technological realities while preserving the human-centric character of copyright law.
Introduction
Copyright law has traditionally evolved in response to technological disruptions that reshape the manner in which creative works are produced and disseminated. The invention of the printing press, the advent of photography, and the emergence of digital technologies each compelled legal systems to revisit the scope and justification of copyright protection.⁴ Artificial Intelligence represents a far more profound challenge, as it questions not merely the method of creation, but the very identity of the creator.
Modern AI systems, particularly those based on machine learning and neural networks, are capable of generating outputs that closely resemble human creative works. These systems can independently write poems, compose music, generate paintings, and produce scripts after being trained on vast datasets.⁵ Unlike earlier technologies, AI does not merely assist human creativity but can function autonomously, often without direct human decision-making at the moment of creation.
Indian copyright law has consistently linked protection to human creativity, skill, and judgment. Judicial decisions have reinforced the idea that copyright exists to reward intellectual labour and protect original expressions arising from human minds.⁶ The increasing prevalence of AI-generated content exposes conceptual and legal gaps within this framework. This paper examines whether Indian copyright law can accommodate authorship without a human author, and whether legislative reform is necessary to address this emerging challenge.
Concept of Authorship in Copyright Law
Authorship as a Human-Centric Concept
Authorship is the foundational concept of copyright law, as it determines ownership, duration, enforceability, and moral rights. Traditionally, an author is understood to be a natural person who creates a work through intellectual effort, creativity, and conscious decision-making.⁷ This understanding is rooted in the philosophical justifications of copyright, particularly the labour theory and personality theory, both of which presuppose human agency.
Indian courts have consistently adopted a human-centric interpretation of authorship. The judiciary has emphasised that copyright protects expressions that result from human skill, labour, and judgment rather than mechanical processes.⁸ This approach aligns with international copyright norms, which also presume the existence of a human creator capable of making creative choices.
Moreover, the recognition of moral rights under Indian law reinforces the human-centric nature of authorship. Rights such as attribution and integrity are premised on the author’s personal connection, reputation, and dignity in relation to the work.⁹ These rights cannot logically attach to non-sentient entities, further supporting the conclusion that authorship under copyright law is inherently human.
Artificial Intelligence and the Challenge to Authorship
Artificial Intelligence fundamentally challenges traditional notions of authorship by introducing non-human creative agents. Once trained, AI systems can generate outputs independently, without real-time human intervention or creative intent.¹⁰ These systems operate through algorithms, probability models, and pattern recognition rather than conscious creativity.
Recognising AI as an author would require granting legal personality to machines, a concept not recognised under Indian law.¹¹ AI lacks intention, accountability, and moral responsibility, all of which are essential attributes of legal authorship. Consequently, attributing authorship to AI risks undermining the conceptual foundations of copyright law.
Indian Copyright Framework
The Copyright Act, 1957
The Copyright Act, 1957 provides protection to authors of original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works.¹² However, the Act does not explicitly address artificial intelligence or autonomous machine-generated works. Most provisions were drafted at a time when computers functioned merely as passive tools under human control.
This statutory silence creates interpretative challenges when applied to AI systems capable of independent creative output. Courts are compelled to rely on provisions that were never intended to address autonomous creativity, leading to legal uncertainty.¹³
Definition of Author under Section 2(d)
Section 2(d)(vi) defines the author of a computer-generated work as “the person who causes the work to be created.”¹⁴ While this provision appears relevant, it predates modern AI systems and was intended to address basic computer-assisted works.
In the context of contemporary AI, multiple actors contribute indirectly to the creation process, including developers, data trainers, platform owners, and end-users.¹⁵ Identifying a single individual who “causes” the creation becomes legally complex, rendering this provision inadequate for addressing autonomous AI-generated works.
Originality and Human Creativity
Originality under Indian Law
Originality is a prerequisite for copyright protection under Indian law. The Supreme Court has clarified that originality does not require novelty but must involve the application of human skill, labour, and judgment.¹⁶ This standard excludes purely mechanical or automated works from copyright protection.
Indian jurisprudence has consistently rejected claims where creative input is minimal or absent.¹⁷ This reinforces the principle that originality is inseparable from human intellectual effort.
AI-Generated Works and Originality
AI-generated works challenge the originality requirement because they are produced through algorithmic processes based on pre-existing data.¹⁸ Although such outputs may appear creative, they lack conscious human decision-making.
Where a work is generated entirely by AI without meaningful human involvement, it fails to meet the legal threshold of originality under Indian law.¹⁹ Consequently, such works are unlikely to qualify for copyright protection.
Human Involvement in AI-Assisted Works
Artificial Intelligence does not always function autonomously. In many creative processes, AI operates as a tool that assists human creators rather than replacing them. In such cases, the legal analysis shifts from whether AI can be an author to whether sufficient human creativity exists to justify copyright protection.²⁰
Human involvement may occur at multiple stages of the creative process. A human may design the prompts, select training data, curate outputs, modify results, or make final editorial decisions. These actions involve creative judgment and intellectual effort, thereby satisfying the originality requirement.²¹ Indian copyright law is capable of recognising authorship in such circumstances, as the human creator remains the source of creative expression.
However, determining the threshold of human involvement poses a significant challenge. Minimal inputs, such as generic prompts, may not constitute sufficient creativity.²² Courts must examine whether the human contribution meaningfully shaped the final work or whether the output was predominantly machine-generated. A case-by-case approach is essential to preserve the balance between technological innovation and the protection of human creativity.²³
Ownership and Moral Rights in AI-Generated Works
Ownership under copyright law flows directly from authorship. Section 17 of the Copyright Act provides that the author is the first owner of copyright.²⁴ Since AI cannot be recognised as an author, the ownership of fully autonomous AI-generated works remains legally ambiguous.
Potential claimants include AI developers, users, or platform operators. However, granting ownership without authorship risks severing the doctrinal link between creativity and ownership.²⁵ Such an approach could lead to monopolisation of machine-generated content and undermine the purpose of copyright law.
Moral rights further complicate the issue. These rights are personal, non-transferable, and reflective of the author’s personality.²⁶ AI-generated works lack emotional and reputational connection, making moral rights conceptually inapplicable. This further supports the exclusion of autonomous AI-generated works from copyright protection.
Comparative International Approaches
The United States maintains a strict requirement of human authorship. The U.S. Copyright Office has repeatedly denied protection to works generated solely by AI, emphasising that copyright protects human creativity.²⁷ This approach reinforces the traditional understanding of authorship.
The United Kingdom adopts a different approach by recognising computer-generated works and attributing authorship to the person who makes the necessary arrangements for creation.²⁸ While this provides legal certainty, it has been criticised for creating artificial legal fictions that dilute the concept of authorship.
India’s human-centric approach aligns more closely with the U.S. model. However, the absence of explicit statutory guidance necessitates legislative clarification to address emerging challenges.²⁹
Policy Considerations and the Need for Reform
Copyright law must strike a balance between encouraging innovation and safeguarding public interest. Extending copyright protection to fully autonomous AI-generated works may result in excessive monopolisation of content and restrict access to creative works.³⁰ India should consider policy reforms that clearly distinguish between AI-assisted and AI-generated works. Protecting human creativity while leaving autonomous AI outputs in the public domain may best serve innovation, competition, and cultural development.³¹ Legislative clarity is essential to ensure legal certainty without undermining the foundational principles of copyright law.
Beyond these concerns, several additional policy considerations strengthen the argument against extending copyright protection to fully autonomous AI-generated works. First, granting copyright to machine-generated outputs risks diluting the core rationale of copyright law, which is premised on rewarding human intellectual labour and creativity. Copyright was never intended to protect automated processes, and extending protection to AI outputs may weaken the moral and philosophical justification for exclusive rights.
Second, autonomous AI systems can generate creative content at an unprecedented scale and speed. If such outputs were protected by copyright, dominant technology companies controlling advanced AI systems could flood the market with protected content, thereby creating artificial scarcity and suppressing competition. This concentration of rights could marginalise individual human creators and undermine diversity in cultural expression.
Third, the absence of human intention and creative judgment in autonomous AI-generated works raises serious concerns about the originality threshold. Indian copyright jurisprudence has consistently emphasised human skill, labour, and judgment as the basis of originality. Recognising AI-generated works as copyrightable may lower this threshold and lead to protection of content that lacks meaningful creative effort.
Fourth, the enforcement of copyright in AI-generated works presents significant practical difficulties. Since AI systems lack legal personality, questions arise regarding who would enforce rights, bear liability, or be held accountable for infringement. Assigning these responsibilities to developers or users without corresponding creative contribution would create legal inconsistencies.
Fifth, moral rights pose a fundamental challenge in the context of AI-generated works. Rights such as attribution and integrity are deeply personal and are designed to protect the author’s reputation and emotional connection with the work. Autonomous AI systems cannot possess reputation, dignity, or personal identity, rendering the application of moral rights conceptually unsound.
Conclusion
Artificial Intelligence has fundamentally transformed the creative landscape, challenging long-standing assumptions about authorship and originality. Indian copyright law, rooted in the protection of human creativity, does not presently recognise authorship without a human author. As this paper has demonstrated, fully autonomous AI-generated works lack the human intellectual input required for copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957.³²
While AI-assisted works may qualify for protection where human creativity predominates, recognising AI as an author would undermine the philosophical and legal foundations of copyright law.³³ Legislative clarification is necessary to address emerging challenges while preserving the central role of human creativity in intellectual property law.³⁴
Footnotes (ILI Style)
- WIPO, Technology Trends: Artificial Intelligence (2019).
- Copyright Act, 1957.
- Arul George Scaria, ‘Copyright and Artificial Intelligence’ (2020) 16 IJLT.
- Lionel Bently et al, Intellectual Property Law (OUP 2018).
- Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot (CUP 2020).
- Eastern Book Co v D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1.
- P Narayanan, Copyright Law (2010).
- R.G. Anand v Delux Films (1978) 4 SCC 118.
- Copyright Act, 1957, s 57.
- Abbott (n 5).
- Bently (n 4).
- Copyright Act, 1957, s 13.
- Scaria (n 3).
- Copyright Act, 1957, s 2(d)(vi).
- Narayanan (n 7).
- Eastern Book Co (n 6).
- R.G. Anand (n 8).
- WIPO (n 1).
- Scaria (n 3).
- Abbott (n 5).
- Gopalakrishnan (2019).
- Scaria (n 3).
- Bently (n 4).
- Copyright Act, 1957, s 17.
- Narayanan (n 7).
- Copyright Act, 1957, s 57.
- US Copyright Office (2023).
- UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 9(3).
- Bently (n 4).
- Pamela Samuelson (1985).
- MeitY, National AI Strategy (2018).
- Scaria (n 3).
- Narayanan (n 7).
- WIPO (n 1).
Author
About the Author
