Introduction
Generative artificial intelligence has significantly changed how people create and generate content from the creative mind. Tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and others Ai tools can generate easily Essays, Poems, Paintings, Artwork, Computer programs, Music, videos, and other Artistic work within the few second and minutes. These technologies are Generally used by Students, Lawyers, Journalists, Businesses, and Artists to create the art by just providing a few line of prompt .While the improvement in creativity and artistic expression, they also raise a difficult legal question: who owns content that is generated by artificial intelligence? Traditional copyright law was built on the assumption that creative works come from human Mind and intelligence and throughout beyond their imagination .AI systems challenge this imagination of human mind because they can produce creative outputs with few second without human involvement. This uncertainty and change affect Authors, Publishers, Artists, Writers, software developers, and Business owner .This article focuses on one specific issue: the requirement of human authorship under copyright law. It examines the copyright laws of India and explores how countries like the United States and the United Kingdom handle this issue. The article uses important court decisions, laws, and research from legal experts to explain the topic. The main aim of this article is to show why current copyright laws struggle with content primarily created by AI without much human intervention .It also discusses some possible legal changes that could protect human creators while allowing AI technology to develop and be used responsibly.
Many legal experts argue that when it is unclear who owns AI-generated content, it can lead to more legal disputes. It also becomes challenging for individuals companies and organization to determine who should be allowed to use the content and how much they should be paid for it. This creates a problems for Script writer , Publishers, Technology companies, Artists, Author and other Creators .
Copyright laws can help Human because creators will understand their rights, and AI companies will know what is expected of them. Until new laws are created, courts will continue to play a crucial role in resolving these issues through their rulings.
Copyright and the Principle of Human Authorship
Copyright law is designed to encourage the creation of new and original Artistic works. It gives creators rights over their Artistic work, such as the right to decide how it is used, Shared , or whom they can sell with their independent rights on that work . It also protects their right to be recognized as the creator of their work. The Berne Convention, an international agreement on copyright, protects Artist and Authors their original work in many countries. However, it does not clearly define whether a machine or an AI system can be considered an author. Because of this, most countries believe that only a human being can be the author of a copyrighted work. Over the many years, courts have explained that a work must show in some of level in human creativity and original thinking to be eligible for copyright protection. Simply by producing something through the machine or by the following automatic instructions is usually not enough to deal with it . Human ideas, choices, planning, and creative expression remain the most important aspects of Copyright Act law.
AI systems do not have feelings thoughts, or a legal identity like human being.They create text, images, music, or other content by the prompt learning patterns from large amounts of data which were shared by the human beings then predicting the most suitable result and create it .Even AI can produce work that appears creative, the law must decide whether content created without real human creativity should be eligible for copyright protection or not .Because of this, many legal experts make a clear distinction between AI-assisted works, where a person uses AI as a tool and still makes important creative decisions, and AI-generated works, where the AI system creates most of the content on its own with minimal human interfere. This distinction is becoming one of the most important issues in modern copyright law.
Indian Legal Framework
The Copyright Act, 1957 was created long before the modern Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning technologies were developed. As a result, the Act does not clearly explain how copyright should apply to content created by AI in today’s world . However, some parts of the Act are still useful for understanding this issue .Section 2(d) defines who is considered the author of various types of creative works and mentions computer-generated works, stating that the author is the person who causes the work to be created. Section 13 states that copyright protection is given only to original works, while Section 17 says that the author is usually the first owner of the copyright .These sections shows that the law expects of every copyrighted work to have a clearly identified author.
The Supreme Court of India explained the meaning of originality in Eastern Book Company v.D.B.Modak (2008).The Court stated that a work must show at least some level of creativity and personal thinking to be eligible for copyright protection.It also rejected the old idea known as the “sweat of the brow” doctrine, which gave copyright simply because a person had invested time and effort into the work.Instead, the Court held that a work should include some creative skill and original thinking.This decision shows that copyright law mainly aims to protect and reward human creativity and intellectual effort.
Today, AI tools can create articles, images, music, computer code, and many other types of content in a few seconds.In many cases, the user only enters a short prompt, while the AI creates most of the final work on its own.This raises an important legal question: is writing a simple prompt enough to make the user the author, or does the AI create most of the work?At present, Indian courts have not provided a final answer to this question.As a result, there is still confusion about who should own the copyright in AI-generated content.This is why many legal experts believe that the Copyright Act should be updated or clearly explained to address modern AI technology.
Many researchers and legal experts also point out that this uncertainty creates several practical problems. When it is unclear who owns AI-generated content, more legal disputes are likely to arise.It also becomes difficult for creators, publishers, businesses, and AI companies to decide who should give permission to use the content and who should receive payment for it.This confusion can slow down business, reduce investment, and create challenges for writers, artists, software developers, and technology companies.Clear copyright laws would help everyone.Human creators would better understand their rights, and AI developers would know what is expected of them.Until new laws are passed, Indian courts will continue to play an important role in resolving these issues through their judgments and in shaping the future of AI and copyright law.
Comparative Developments
The United States has always required that copyright be held by a human author. In the case of Naruto v. Slater, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a copyright claim related to the famous ‘monkey selfie’ because the law does not allow animals to own copyrights.Although this case was not about artificial intelligence, it reinforced the idea that copyright can only be held by legally recognized human creators.More recently, in Thaler v.Perlmutter, the court confirmed that artwork created solely by an AI system cannot be registered for copyright because human authorship is essential.The U.S.Copyright Office has provided detailed guidance, stating that works made entirely by AI are not eligible for registration, but human involvement in selecting, editing, or arranging content may be protected.The United Kingdom takes a slightly different approach.Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 gives the person who makes the arrangements for computer-generated works the authorship rights.However, some legal experts suggest that this provision was intended for traditional computer-generated outputs, not highly autonomous AI systems.Even in the UK, it is unclear whether this rule applies to AI-generated content that is highly original in expression.Academic research points out that uncertainty around ownership increases the chances of legal disputes, makes it harder to negotiate licenses, and creates uncertainty for publishers, tech companies, and independent creators.
A clear and predictable legal framework supports both innovation and investment because creators can understand their rights and AI developers can understand their legal duties.Courts are therefore expected to play a key role until lawmakers introduce specific AI copyright reforms.
Training Data and Copyright Infringement
The legality of AI outputs is closely linked to the use of training data.Large language models and image generators are trained using vast collections of books, articles, artworks, photographs, and online content.Many of these materials are protected by copyright. Authors and publishers claim that using their works without permission for training infringes on their reproduction rights and harms the creative industries.AI developers argue with that training is a transformative process involving statistical analysis and is often protected by exceptions like fair use or text-and-data mining.Several lawsuits against AI companies are currently being heard in U.S.courts, and their outcomes are likely to influence international copyright policies. In India, similar disputes could arise under the Copyright Act, particularly in relation to fair dealing, digital reproduction, and technological innovation.The challenge is to protect creators from exploitation without compensation while still allowing research and innovation to thrive.
Academic literature further notes that uncertainty regarding ownership increases litigation risks, complicates licensing negotiations, and creates commercial uncertainty for publishers, technology companies and independent creators.A predictable legal framework benefits both innovation and investment because creators understand the scope of their rights while AI developers understand their legal obligations.Courts are therefore expected to play an important role until legislatures adopt specific AI copyright reforms.
Possible Ownership Models
Scholars have proposed various approaches to resolve ownership disputes.One idea is to grant copyright to the user whose prompts and creative decisions significantly influence the final output.Another option is to assign ownership to AI developers, as they design and train the systems that produce expressive content.A third proposal suggests that fully autonomous AI-generated works should remain in the public domain because copyright is meant to reward human creativity.Some experts recommend creating a new type of right, specifically for AI-generated content. Each approach has its pros and cons. Giving ownership to developers might reduce users’ incentives for innovation. Granting ownership to users despite minimal input could weaken the originality requirement. Public domain treatment helps with access but may discourage commercial investment. Therefore, many scholars advocate for a contextual approach that distinguishes between AI-assisted creativity and fully autonomous generation.
Academic literature further notes that uncertainty regarding ownership increases litigation risks, complicates licensing negotiations, and creates commercial uncertainty for publishers, technology companies and independent creators.
A predictable legal framework benefits both innovation and investment because creators understand the scope of their rights while AI developers understand their legal obligations. Courts are therefore expected to play an important role until legislatures adopt specific AI copyright reforms.
Need for Legal Reform
India should create a balanced legal framework rather than just applying existing copyright rules. Parliament could clarify the meaning of Section 2(d) for AI-assisted works by specifying the level of human creativity needed for authorship. Clear legal guidance would help reduce uncertainty for creators, businesses, and courts. Requiring AI developers to maintain records of the training data they use could improve accountability and make licensing easier. Policymakers should also explore collective licensing options that allow copyright owners to receive fair compensation when their works are used in AI training. International cooperation through organizations like WIPO is essential because AI technologies operate across borders. Harmonized principles can reduce conflicting legal standards and support responsible innovation.
Conclusion
Generative AI is one of the most significant technological innovations in today’s creative fields, but it also poses challenges to the traditional principles of copyright law. Current legal systems place importance on human authorship, originality, and intellectual creativity as key factors in determining who owns copyright. Legal cases from India and other countries show a clear hesitation in acknowledging machines as creators.While AI has proven to be a useful tool for creativity, available evidence suggests that copyright should continue to safeguard genuine human input rather than outputs created entirely by machines. Future changes in the law should strike a careful balance between technological growth and the rights of creators, artists, and the public. A clear and consistent legal structure will support innovation while maintaining the core goal of copyright: to reward human creativity and support the spread of knowledge.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY BABAN KUMAR FROM SAI NATH UNIVERSITY, RANCHI
REFERENCES :
1. Copyright Act, 1957 (India), ss. 2(d), 13 and 17.
2. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1.
3. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
4. WIPO, Revised Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence.
