ABSTRACT
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is now transforming the industry by generating creative arts, music, literature, and software in every sector. Copyright guarantees the right the creator of an original work of authorship. AI is now challenging the traditional method of Copyright, which assumes that only humans can be authors. This paper examines the legal recognition of AI works across United States, United Kingdom(UK), European union, and India, examining how these jurisdictions address AI authorship. This paper explores the key case studies, including AI generated art, music, literature and software to highlight real world disputes over authorship and infringement. Countries like UK recognizes AI work but the copyright is granted to the human user or developer. India yet remains undecided but is considering policy reforms. There are arguments for and against granting copyright to AI. Some argue AI meets originality and fixation while some claim AI lacks human intent and creativity. AI generated works are also diminishing human artists’ rights which becomes a matter of concern about flooding the creative market.
This study aims to provide a balanced perspective on AI generated copyright, exploring whether current laws should be adapted to accommodate AI Driven creativity while maintain legal inevitability and fairness in Intellectual Property Rights. By the end of this article, all these questions will be thoroughly examined through an analysis of global legal frameworks, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal challenges surrounding AI generated works and potential solutions. The questions follow:
- Can AI generated works be copyrighted?
- If, so who should own the copyright – the programmer, user or AI itself?
- Should existing copyright laws be modified to accommodate AI creativity?
KEYWORDS
AI generated works, Copyright Law, AI Ownership, Intellectual Property Right, Legal challenges
INRODUCTION
As Artificial Intelligence is evolving, they are now assisting human in work, they are now capable of creating new and individualistic works of art, literature and even software. AI-generated contents are now challenging the traditional concepts of creativity and authorship, which is raising questions about how to apply the existing legal frameworks of Copyright law. Conventionally, Copyright law has been designed to protect the Intellectual property of human creators by offering them exclusive rights to their original works. Nevertheless, as AI systems create these works, the actual question arises is Who holds the rights to works produced by an entity that lacks human qualities such as intent and creativity?
The concern of AI-generated content and Copyright ownership is not just speculative; it even has realistic and legal implications for industries dependant on safeguarding creative works. In the case of Thaler v. U.S. Copyright Office (2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that AI without human involvement cannot be granted copyright protection. Such legal rulings highlight the legal vacuum surrounding AI and copyright. This raises significant challenges in society as AI tools are becoming essential to creative industries. Whether AI-generated works should meet the requirements for Copyright protection and who should hold the rights to such creations is an ongoing debate in Intellectual Property law.
The US copyright office released Part 2 of its report on copyright and artificial intelligence on January 29th 2025. This part addresses the copyright ability of AI generated outputs. The key conclusion is that generative AI outputs can only be copyrighted if a human has a contributed creative, expressive into the work. Simply providing AI prompts is insufficient for copyright protection. However, AI can assist in the creation process as long as human creativity is central to the work. The copyright office does not recommend any change to the existing copyright laws regarding AI generated works. Additionally, the report confirms that AI generated content incorporated into a larger human created work can still be copyrighted. this is the second part of a three-part report Part 1 was released on July 31st 2024 which recommended federal legislation to address the unauthorized distribution of digital replicas. Part 3 will focus on legal implications of using copyrighted works to train AI model.
Intellectual property rights, offers exclusive right to the right holders who are a legal person. For a creator to be granted these rights they must meet the criteria which are relevant in IPR legislation. As India is a member of several significant international treaties and agreement, it aims to provide comprehensive protection for IPRs which includes: the protection for works created by legal person under the Copyright and the Patent system. India’s approach to IPR protection meets the global standards. It also grants adequate safeguards for works created by human creators. The Copyright Act 1957, grants economic rights to the copyright owner rights such as reproduction, translation, and adaption and require users of generating AI to seek permission to utilise copyrighted works for commercial purposes unless their use is covered as exception under section 52 of the Copyright Act. Consequently, the work of copyright must be legally authorised ensuring that the rights of original copyright holders are protected.
The most prominent case regarding the ownership authority the “Raghav” case in India, involving the AI-generated artwork Suryast, marks a significant moment in the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. In 2020, artist and lawyer Ankit Sahni sought copyright registration for Suryast, created using his AI tool, Raghav, and applied the style of Vincent van Gogh’s The Starry Night to an original photograph. The Indian Copyright Office granted recognition, acknowledging Raghav as a co-author alongside Sahni, making it one of the first instances where AI was formally recognized as a contributor to copyrighted work. However, a contrasting stance was taken by the U.S. Copyright Office in 2023, when it denied registration for the work, asserting that it lacked sufficient human authorship, as Raghav’s role in the creation process was seen as central. This case highlights the ongoing debate and challenges surrounding the legal status of AI in creative processes and the evolving definitions of authorship in copyright law.
India has currently faced its first legal case concerning copyright and AI. In January 2025, the news agency Asian News International filed a lawsuit against open AI in Delhi High Court, alleging that open AIS ChatGPT used anis copyrighted content without authorization to train its AI models. Presently, as per reports Indian Media has assembled into lawsuit against OpenAI Chatbot.
This research paper will examine all the legal backbone along with the case studies to explore the cool question that surrounds the creativity of AI generated work. Can AI generated works meet the standard of originality and replicability.
COPYRIGHT LAW
Copyright law is a well-established legal framework which is created to protect rights of individuals who produce original works ensure that their creation is not copied or reproduced without permission. The primary goal is to reward creators for their effort and foster innovations by granting exclusive rights to the creators. This legal structure provides a clear method for protecting intellectual property of human creators, as it recognises effort, time and creativity.
The traditional understanding of copyright law is that it applies to creation that is authored by human beings. Despite AIs advancement capabilities, with many functions such as learning and adapting to new data, the legal framework has yet not fully addressed the works created by AI to be protected by copyright. AI systems generate content by processing vast amount of data, identifying patterns and improving their output through times by learning new techniques. In many cases, AI system organise and randomise patterns which may not reflect the full creative vision of anyone human being but of multiples constructed together. This raises significant legal questions about whether such works can meet the standard of originality that is required for copyright production this distinction between human creativity and AI generated content presents a complex issue that challenges the foundation of copyright law.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research employs a qualitative, comparative legal analysis to explore the implications of AI generated work along with the copyright law. The methodology is qualitative as it focuses on understanding the legal complexities surrounding AI works and their treatment under the copyright law. The research paper is also comparative as its analysis how different legal systems like the US, the UK, the EU and India addresses this issue. The study will analyse primary legal sources including court cases along with statues, judicial opinions and government reports. Secondary sources, search as scholarly articles and legal commentaries, will further inform the analysis. The methodology centres on examining how different jurisdictions, addresses this creators and AI work.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The artificial intelligence and copyright law attracted significant attention as the AI continues to evolve, generating creative works across all the sectors including music art and software. Scholars have presented differing opinions on how copyright laws should apply to AI generated works but still the question revolves around whether AI system should be considered authors in legal sense.
One of the primary legal challenges is whether AI system authors of the work they generate. Traditionally copyright law has long operated under the assumption that only human creators can hold copyright over their works in the thaler versus US copyright office decision in 2021, where US court of appeals ruled that AI system cannot be listed as author. This ruling confirmed that copyright protection is reserved only for human creators and also emphasises a human intent to the creation process for the legal authorship.
Another important consideration is the nature of creativity. For the work to be eligible for copyright protection the work must be original and there must be a creativity. The question arises weather AI works meet these criteria’s sense AI systems such as DALL- E, can produce content that mimics human creativity. AI system rely on large databases to generate works the outcomes can sometimes be sophisticated, some scholars yet argue that absence of human intent challenges the foundation of what creativity actually means under the court Copyright Act.
Internationally different countries have different approaches to AI generated works. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Copyright, designs and patent acts of 1988 has been interpreted to allow human creators to claim copyright over works created with the assistance of AI. Like Section 9 defines an “Author” and Section 11 define “computer generated works”. Nevertheless, the law does not grant copyright ownership to the AI itself it also positions the users or developer as the rightful copyright owner. While in the European Union there is no clear legal framework for AI generated works but the European Commission has acknowledged the growing importance of AI in creative industries it may consider reforms that could accommodate a is involvement in creative process, although the legal status yet remains unresolved.
Legal scholars and policymakers are recognising the need for reforms in copyright laws to address the challenge posed by the AI works. Some scholars have proposed creation of new categories of rights to protect AI generated contents while some advocate for adapting existing laws to reflect the changing nature of creativity and authorship. In 2022, The US copyright office issued a policy statement acknowledging the challenge possessed by AI and public feedbacks on how to address the issue. This step demonstrates ongoing effort to balance promotion of innovations with protection of human creator rights.
As AI continues to evolve, the development of clear legal frameworks will be essential to ensure the intellectual property system remains relevant and fair by providing both creators and developers with appropriate rights to continue maintaining the boundaries of creativity along with advancement in technologies.
THE OWNERSHIP MYSTERY
As AI has become an influential tool in various creative fields the question of who owns the works created by AI has become a legal issue. With AI becoming more active in creative process, defining the ownership has become a challenging task. Alongside this issue of accountability arises in cases where AI generated works infringe the existing copyrights. system engages in creation of works who is responsible for such infringement becomes unclear. This ambiguity introduces new complexities to the legal landscape especially as AI decision making challenges traditional concepts of Copyright law.
In the US the copyright protection is limited only to the works that are created by human beings this principle is supported by legal precedents such as the Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Company, NC. case and under Section 101 of U.S Copyright act. This section defines copyright works as original creations that are fixed in physical medium. Though the copyright does not directly define what an author is, but in case law such as Naruto v. Slater, court clarifies that computers and machines cannot be recognised as authors. The court in the case explained that the term author in the Copyright Act implies the creator of a work must be human. Based on this works created purely by AI without human creative input are not eligible for copyright protection in the US. The US copyright office has also expressed the view that the works produced by machines or any mechanical process which tends to operate independently, without human creative input, are not eligible for copyright protection. Consequently, the office denies registration for works that do not have a human author involved in the creative process.
A more recent case, Anderson v Stability AI, highlights concerns surrounding AI generated work in this case a group of artists filed a class action lawsuit against various AI platforms claiming this platform has used the original works without proper license and trained AI system to replicate the artist’s distinctive styles. This case reflects conflicts over the use of AI in creative industries.
While there are critics who raise concerns about the impact of AI on traditional creative industries there are also supporters to emphasise the positive potential of AI generated art. Advocates argue that AI can expand the boundaries of creativity by enabling people without traditional artistic works skills to produce visually appealing works. They draw on the principle of Fair use which is often applied in copyright law to allow transformation of existing works for purpose such as criticism or any commentary. Scholars argue that AI generated works could be seen as a new form of creation that is consistent with the evolution.
On the other aspect AI generated concerns is in its impact on the livelihoods of human creators. There are fears that more use of AI in creative industry could flood the market with cheap, quickly produced works that lack human touch of tradition art. It might also drive down economic value of human created works which is a hazard for artists in order to sell their creation.
In India the situation is further complicated by some provisions of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 under section 2(d)(vi) of the Act, the definition of computer-generated works was established long before AI involvement in art creation. According to the act the authorship of such works is attributed to the person who causes the work to be created. However, there is an ongoing debate weather AI entities can be recognised as authors. This debate has yet to be resolved due to lack of legal precedent and clear policy guidance from Indian copyright office according to current legal uncertainty
Initially section 17 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 allows the author to transfer ownership to another party such as an employer or a commissioning entity. However, in case of AI generated works ownership becomes unclear as AI system cannot enter into contract or make legal decisions.
Who Owns AI-Created Works? Examining Copyright Attribution in the Digital Era
In the context of AI generated works, the term author is understood as an individual who creates or produces a work. However, when it comes to work created with AI, the author can become complex. AI is seen as a tool used by human to create something, rather than being an independent creator on its own. The discussion on authorship in AI generated works is not as simple as attributing the work to AI itself but rather considering the human role in using the AI to create work.
Some experts suggest that there are three main possibilities. The first possibility is that human who made the necessary arrangement for creating the work should be credited as the author. This idea is based on the belief that a strong connection exists between human intent and work produced by an AI. In situations where multiple people are involved in creating the work, helps determine roles of each contributor. This view of authorship is consistent with how copyright laws are constructed in different countries.
The legal framework found in the UK and other similar jurisdiction highlights importance of human involvement in creative process. Even cases where AI generates final product, the law recognises the role of the human who made the process, ensuring significant human contribution is required for copyright protection. The second possibility for ownership is considered the AI program itself as author, especially when work is entirely generated by AI without any human input. Experts of this view argue that if AI system autonomously generates a work without direct human involvement, the AI itself could be regarded as the creator. However, others believe that simply having human user involved in some we may not explain the creative process when AI generates work on its own. They suggest that the creator of AI program itself should be recognised as the author.
Does, when considering authorship of works generated by AI it becomes clear that traditional ideas of authorship may not be sufficient to address the complexities of this works simply contributing authorship to a human without direct involvement of creating process might not accurately represent the nature of AI generated content. Conclusively a creative and more practical solution should be assigned to the copyright ownership only to the developer or owner of the AI system that created the works. This solution acknowledges central role of AI program and its developer in creative process, while also adapting copyright laws to account for unique challenges presented by AI.
SUGGESTIONS
AI continues to play a significant role in creation of artistic and literary work, now it becomes necessary to adopt copyright law to address these challenges. One key approach would be to treat AI as a tool by human creators rather than an independent author. Copyright has traditionally focused on human creativity and extending its framework to AI requires consideration that human plays an important role in guiding the outputs.
To accommodate the growing influence of AI it is crucial to introduce specific legal frameworks that addresses AI generated works directly. Current Copyright laws were not made by keeping AI in mind. However, AI is a modern technology development which needs to be addressed. By creating provisions, lawmakers could establish guidelines as to when AI work could get exclusive rights, or the human creator behind the AI will be the exclusive owner.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the question of ownership of AI generated works is a challenge to the traditional copyright law. A balanced approach is needed to be adapted by Copyright Law to these new realities, by also considering the role of AI developers in case of minimal human involvement. Ultimately, Copyright Law must evolve to adequately address the complexities in creation.
In Indian context, the legal framework of AI generated work still remains unambiguous, while Copyright Act acknowledges technology in creation process, yet remains silent on growing AI influence. As AI continues to shape in various sectors, it is important for lawmakers to adapt and redefine ownership keeping the percentage of effort of creation and materiality.
Now whether the ownership lies with the programmer, the user or the entity that owns the AI system will depend on future legislative developments, the clarity should be essential as to fairness and at the same time promote innovations which is the main goal of Copyright Laws.
BY: AKANKSHA.
KLE SOCIETY’S LAW COLLEGE, BANGALORE