Artificial Intelligence and Copyright in India

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative technology with vast implications for various industries, including the aspects of copyright law.

The intersection of AI and copyright in India presents interesting legal questions and challenges.

This article delves provides you with a knowledgeable insight into artificial intelligence and copyright in India.

It explores the implications of AI-generated content, such as artwork, music, and literary works, and the subsequent copyright protection afforded to these creations.

We will examine the role of AI in the creative process, the ownership and authorship concerns, and the legal framework governing AI-generated works.

Work of Artificial Intelligence

The work of artificial intelligence (AI) encompasses a wide range of tasks and applications.

AI refers to the development of computer systems that can perform tasks that typically require human intelligence.

These tasks can include natural language processing, image and speech recognition, data analysis, problem-solving, and decision-making.

In the context of copyright law, the work of AI raises interesting questions regarding authorship and ownership.

Since AI systems are capable of generating original content, such as artwork, music, or written texts, it becomes essential to determine who should be considered the author or owner of such works.

Artificial Intelligence and Copyright in India

The Copyright Act of 1957 in India was amended in 1994. This was done to include computer-generated works, such as literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works.

A specific provision, Section 2(d)(v), was introduced to define the authorship of such works as “the person who causes the work to be created.”

The determination of AI authorship depends on how the term “person” is defined and interpreted in its context.

Rupendra Kashyap v. Jiwan Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.

A traditional approach was observed in this case before the High Court of Delhi, which dealt with the copyright claim of the Central Board of Secondary Education over question papers.

The Court determined that the CBSE cannot assert copyright without evidence of individual involvement in creating the question papers, given its status as an artificial entity.

Under the Indian copyright act, authorship can only be attributed to a natural person.

This position was further supported in the case of Tech Plus Media Private Ltd. v. Jyoti Janda.

Tech Plus Media Private Ltd. v. Jyoti Janda

In this case, the Court affirmed that authorship cannot be attributed to a juristic person, although it can be the copyright owner.

This interpretation was reaffirmed by the High Court of Delhi in 2019 in the case of Navigators Logistics Ltd. v. Kashif Qureshi & Ors.

Navigators Logistics Ltd. v. Kashif Qureshi & Ors

The case centered on a copyright claim for a computer-generated list, which was dismissed by the Court due to the lack of human intervention.

This aligns with the position in the United States, where authorship cannot be solely attributed to AI.

The Government of India has recognised the importance of AI in the developmental process .

Indian Government has taken steps such as the ‘AI for All’ policy and the AI Task Force to use AI for social and economic changes.

Given the rapid advancement in AI technology, it becomes crucial to re-evaluate the intellectual property framework to ensure that the law keeps pace with these developments.

The Indian Copyright Act may be updated to acknowledge AI as authors.

However, it is important to clarify that the ownership of the work should still reside with a natural or juristic person.

This is necessary to ensure that legal actions can be taken against responsible entities.

Additionally, other considerations arise, such as situations where AI is developed by one person but generates output based on inputs from another person.

In instances like these, it is necessary to establish copyright ownership among the parties involved.

Any legal framework aiming to attribute authorship (either fully or partially) to AI must address these questions and provide comprehensive answers.

Ownership of AI-Generated Works

Ownership of works created by Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolves around the concepts of originality, significant human input, and similarity to existing works.

In determining originality, copyright law requires that a work must exhibit some degree of creativity that is traceable to a human author. This is where the “Significant Human Input” test becomes important: a human must have contributed meaningfully to the creative process for an AI-generated work to be eligible for copyright protection.

When AI systems generate content autonomously, the work might resemble existing works but still display enough variation to be considered “similar but not the same.” This variation could involve reinterpreting data in ways that slightly deviate from established works, like AI generating a new poem that mimics but doesn’t replicate famous poetry:

“The stars above, they softly gleam,
But in their light, I do not dream.”

Here, the AI-generated lines echo traditional poetic themes but present them with slight originality. The human involvement in training and guiding the AI may ultimately determine whether copyright can be claimed.

For instance, in the case of Naruto v. Slater, U.S. courts denied copyright for a monkey’s selfie, asserting the need for human authorship—a principle similarly applicable to AI. This underscores the importance of human intervention for ownership of AI-generated works.

Challenges in Recognising AI as an Author Under Indian Copyright Law

Recognising AI as an author of copyright raises several complications that need careful consideration.

The existing Indian Copyright legislation may not be fully equipped to address these complexities.

Let’s examine some of the challenges associated with AI and copyright laws:

• Ownership Transfer: As per Section 17 of the Indian Copyright Act, the original creator of a piece of work is typically acknowledged as the initial proprietor.
  • However, transferring ownership in the case of AI-created works becomes problematic. Since AI cannot execute or authorise transfers, establishing a clear transfer of ownership would be challenging.
• Special Rights of the Author: Section 57 of the Act grants special rights, known as moral rights, to authors, including the right to be associated with their work and the right to protect its integrity. However, these rights may not be suitable for enforcement by AI, as it lacks the ability to assess the impact on its honor or reputation.
• Royalty Determination: Authors of copyrighted works are entitled to claim royalties, which cannot be waived. If AI is considered the author, determining the royalty and disbursing it to AI present practical challenges. Questions may arise about who determines the amount of royalty and whether it should be based on reasonability.
• Lack of AI Accountability: Holding AI accountable for its creations is a significant hurdle. In situations where AI-generated work is defamatory, obscene, or against public morals, taking legal action against AI directly becomes difficult. Remedies may involve removing the content or shutting down the AI, but without clear accountability mechanisms, the acceptance of AI as an author becomes problematic.

These complexities highlight the need for a comprehensive framework that addresses the unique challenges associated with AI-generated works.

As the field of AI evolves, it is crucial to evaluate and adapt copyright laws to strike a balance between promoting innovation and ensuring accountability in the digital age.

India’s IPR Framework Sufficient for AI-Generated Works

The Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry has affirmed that India’s existing Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) framework is capable of protecting AI-generated works, dismissing the need for a separate category of rights. This response came after MPs Rajani Ashokrao Patil and Ranjeet Ranjan raised queries in the Rajya Sabha concerning copyright infringement by generative AI and recommendations from the 161st Parliamentary Standing Committee report, which suggested a new rights category for AI innovations.

Minister of State Som Prakash explained that the current IPR regime, including Copyright and Related Rights, grants exclusive protections to legal person for their creations, enabling royalty collection through licensing.

He emphasised that, as a member of key international intellectual property agreements, India’s existing legal framework already provides adequate protection for works created by legal entities. He added that there is no requirement to create separate rights for AI-generated content.

Prakash also addressed concerns raised by creative writers regarding large language models (LLMs), stating that the Copyright Act of 1957 mandates users of generative AI to obtain permission before using copyrighted works for commercial purposes.

He emphasised that enforcement of intellectual property rights lies with individual right holders, who have access to civil and criminal remedies against copyright infringement under Indian law.

What’s Next?

The intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and copyright in India presents complex challenges regarding the authorship and ownership of AI-generated material.

While India’s current copyright laws recognise legal persons, such as human authors and corporations, the rapid rise of machine creativity brings into focus the AI-inventorship question. The central idea revolves around the authorship issue: should the human author or the owner of the AI be granted rights for content created through AI’s involvement in the creation process?

As AI systems process vast amounts of data to produce creative outputs, the advancement of society through these innovations is undeniable. However, protecting the rights of copyright holders becomes more complicated as AI-generated content blurs the traditional boundaries of intellectual property. Ensuring that AI-generated material does not infringe on existing works is crucial to safeguarding creativity and innovation.

Solutions like Bytescare provide a proactive approach to this issue. Bytescare’s innovative technology prevents copyright violation by protecting digital content, ensuring that the rights of copyright holders are respected.

As AI continues to evolve, tools like Bytescare will be essential for protecting digital content. Book a demo to explore how Bytescare can safeguard your digital content.

FAQs