INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE ERA OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: CHALLENGES AND LEGAL RESPONSES

By
inkinccorporation@gmail.com
-
0
6


ABSTRACT

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly transformed the landscape of intellectual property rights (IPR), posing fundamental questions about authorship, ownership, and legal recognition. As AI systems become increasingly capable of generating original works and inventive solutions with minimal human input, traditional frameworks of IP law designed around human creativity and invention appear increasingly inadequate. This research undertakes a critical examination of the challenges posed by AI-generated content within the ambit of copyright and patent law, particularly focusing on the problem of attributing legal authorship and ownership to non-human entities.

In the Indian context, the existing legal regime under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Patents

Act, 1970 does not yet accommodate the complexities introduced by autonomous AI systems. Indian jurisprudence continues to rely on a human-centric approach, which leaves AI-generated works in a grey area devoid of consistent protection. This study explores the implications of such legal gaps and evaluates the readiness of India’s IP framework to address the realities of machine-generated creativity and innovation.

To offer a well-rounded perspective, the research incorporates a comparative legal analysis of global approaches to AI and IPR examining the policies and jurisprudence of the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and other Asian jurisdictions including Singapore, Japan, and China. The study also considers the emerging role of international bodies such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in shaping a harmonized and ethically sound legal response to AI innovation.

Ultimately, this paper argues for a recalibration of India’s IP laws through statutory amendments, judicial interpretation, and policy innovation. It proposes a balanced framework that acknowledges the role of human agency in deploying AI, while also ensuring legal certainty and protection for AI-assisted outputs. By addressing both theoretical concerns and practical legal challenges, this research seeks to contribute meaningfully to the global discourse on intellectual property in the age of artificial intelligence.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force across diverse sectors, redefining not only the mechanics of innovation but also the underlying assumptions about creativity, authorship, and ownership. AI technologies are no longer confined to performing repetitive tasks; they now possess the capacity to autonomously compose music, write poetry, generate artworks, and even devise novel inventions. This capacity has unsettled the foundations of intellectual property law, a regime historically constructed around the legal recognition of human intellect and ingenuity. As AI systems increasingly blur the lines between human and machine authorship, the traditional legal structures governing intellectual property rights (IPR) are facing unprecedented conceptual and regulatory challenges.

Intellectual property law serves as a critical mechanism for incentivizing innovation and protecting creative outputs. Whether in the form of copyright, patent, or trademark, IPR has long rested on the assumption that authorship, inventorship, and ownership can be assigned to identifiable human agents. The introduction of generative AI is capable of producing outputs without direct human manipulation or foresight — destabilizes these assumptions. As a result, questions have surfaced regarding who (if anyone)  should own the rights to works created by AI, whether such works meet the criteria for protection under existing legal doctrines, and how liability should be apportioned in cases of infringement or misuse.

Within this evolving legal landscape, India finds itself at a critical juncture. As a country striving to position itself as a leader in digital innovation and AI research, India must also address the deficiencies and ambiguities within its intellectual property framework. Currently, Indian law does not recognize non-human authorship, nor does it offer explicit guidance on the treatment of AI-generated works. While certain provisions within the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Patents Act, 1970 may be interpreted to extend limited protection to works involving AI, these interpretations remain legally untested and conceptually contentious. The absence of clear statutory or judicial direction raises the risk of inconsistent enforcement, uncertainty for innovators, and possible under-protection of valuable intellectual outputs.

The challenges posed by AI to IPR are not unique to India. Jurisdictions around the world are grappling with similar questions, though the pace and nature of their legal responses varies widely. For instance, the United States has taken a firm stance by rejecting the copyrightability of works created by AI without human input, while the European Union continues to explore legislative reforms through its proposed AI Act and other instruments. Meanwhile, countries like the United Kingdom, Singapore, Japan, and China are experimenting with models that attempt to balance technological innovation with legal certainty. These diverse approaches offer valuable insights for India as it contemplates its own path forward.

This research aims to investigate the core legal issues surrounding the protection of AI-generated works under the current intellectual property regime, with a particular emphasis on the Indian legal framework. It further seeks to compare India’s position with international practices to identify gaps, opportunities, and possible legal models that could inform reform. By engaging in doctrinal analysis, comparative study, and policy evaluation, this paper endeavors to provide a coherent and practical roadmap for adapting IPR law to meet the realities of the AI era.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research employs a qualitative and doctrinal methodology to examine the legal challenges and responses related to intellectual property rights (IPR) in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). The study primarily involves an in-depth analysis of existing legal provisions, judicial decisions, policy frameworks, and scholarly literature pertinent to AI-generated works and IP protection.

The data collection is based on a comprehensive review of Indian legislation, including the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Patents Act, 1970, alongside relevant international treaties and guidelines issued by bodies such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). These sources provide the statutory and policy context necessary to understand India’s current legal stance on AI and IP.

Secondary sources such as academic articles, books, and reports are critically analyzed to explore doctrinal interpretations, emerging challenges, and theoretical perspectives. Given the limited judicial pronouncements in India specifically addressing AI-generated works, the research also adopts a comparative approach by examining legal frameworks and case laws from jurisdictions like the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. This comparative analysis helps identify best practices and potential pathways for reform in India.

The research methodology is primarily doctrinal but supplemented by normative analysis to propose practical recommendations for adapting the Indian IP regime to technological advancements. Although constrained by the emerging nature of AI jurisprudence in India, this methodology allows for a thorough exploration of both the existing legal framework and the need for future legal developments.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Artificial intelligence (AI) broadly refers to computer systems designed to perform tasks that traditionally require human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, and creativity. Advances in AI, including machine learning and neural networks, have enabled machines to autonomously generate a wide variety of creative and inventive outputs, from artistic works to technological inventions. This evolution challenges conventional intellectual property (IP) laws, which have historically been grounded in the assumption that creativity and inventorship are exclusively human traits.[1]

Traditional IP frameworks, including copyright and patent laws, require a human author or inventor as a prerequisite for protection. Copyright protects ―original works of authorship,‖ and patent law mandates a human inventor responsible for the conception of an invention. However, as AI systems increasingly create works with minimal human intervention, the question arises whether existing legal doctrines sufficiently address the complexities of AI-generated creations. The tension between the human-centric legal model and autonomous AI creativity raises fundamental questions about authorship, ownership, and liability under current IP regimes.[2] These challenges are further compounded by the rapid pace of AI development, which often outstrips the ability of legal systems to adapt and respond effectively. The legal uncertainty surrounding AI-generated works risks either stifling innovation due to inadequate protection or allowing unregulated exploitation of AI outputs without clear attribution or accountability. Thus, revisiting and possibly redefining the core principles of intellectual property law becomes essential to balance encouraging technological progress while safeguarding creators’ rights and interests.

This conceptual framework sets the stage for examining the adequacy of existing laws to accommodate AI-generated works, particularly in India, and for exploring potential legal reforms that respond to the growing influence of AI on innovation.

LEGAL CHALLENGES IN PROTECTING AI-GENERATED WORK

The rise of artificial intelligence as an autonomous creator of original works presents significant challenges for existing intellectual property (IP) frameworks. Traditionally, IP laws have been built on the premise that creativity and invention are inherently human activities. However, AI systems now generate artistic, literary, and technological outputs with minimal or no human intervention, raising complex questions about how these creations fit within current legal protections.

A primary legal difficulty arises from the concept of authorship and inventorship, which remain strictly tied to natural persons under prevailing copyright and patent laws. Copyright protection requires a human author for a work to qualify, and patent law demands a human inventor responsible for the invention’s conception. When AI autonomously produces works, determining who holds the rights becomes problematic. Should rights vest in the AI’s programmer, the user, or another entity? Since AI lacks legal personhood, it cannot itself hold IP rights, creating a notable gap in ownership and enforcement.[3]

Another challenge pertains to the standards of originality and inventive step. AI-generated works often stem from complex algorithms processing large datasets; producing results that may be novel but do not necessarily involve human creativity or inventive reasoning. The human-centric criteria for originality and non-obviousness pose interpretive difficulties in assessing AIgenerated outputs for protection.[4]

Liability and enforcement concerns also complicate the protection of AI-generated works. If such works infringe existing IP rights or cause harm, attributing responsibility is challenging, especially given AI’s autonomous operation. Current laws provide limited guidance on assigning liability to AI developers, operators, or other parties, potentially leaving rights holders vulnerable and infringements unresolved. [5]

Addressing these multifaceted challenges requires legislative and policy reforms that balance the promotion of innovation with adequate protection and clear ownership rights in the evolving AIdriven creative landscape.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING AI GENERATED WORK IN INDIA

India’s intellectual property regime has traditionally been structured around the principle that creations and inventions must originate from human authors or inventors. The Copyright Act, 1957, and the Patents Act, 1970 emphasize that protection is granted only when a natural person is responsible for the creation or invention. This poses significant challenges in the present era, where artificial intelligence systems increasingly produce creative works and inventions with minimal or no human intervention.

The Copyright Act protects ―original works of authorship,‖ a phrase that, according to prevailing legal interpretations, applies exclusively to human creators. This limitation means that work autonomously generated by AI fall into a legal gray area regarding copyright eligibility. Likewise, the Patents Act requires that an inventor be a human individual, thereby excluding inventions that are entirely the product of AI. This creates uncertainty around who holds the rights to AI-generated works: whether it is the programmer, the user of the AI, or some other party.

Judicial decisions in India have yet to directly address the complexities presented by AIgenerated intellectual property, and the statutes remain silent on this emerging issue. Nonetheless, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) has initiated efforts to explore the implications of AI for IP law. These consultations indicate an increasing recognition among policymakers that existing laws may need to evolve to effectively protect AI-driven innovation while balancing the interests of creators, inventors, and society at large.[6]

India’s commitments under international agreements such as the TRIPS Agreement add a further dimension to this challenge. While TRIPS establishes minimum standards for IP protection, it does not yet provide clear direction on how AI-generated works should be treated. Consequently, India faces the complex task of harmonizing its domestic laws with international obligations while addressing the unique characteristics of AI-generated creations.[7] 

To support the growth of AI-driven innovation, India’s legal system must develop new frameworks that clearly define authorship, ownership, and accountability concerning AIgenerated works. Such reforms will be essential for providing legal certainty and fostering an environment where technological advancement can thrive without compromising the protection of intellectual property rights.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL RESPONSES

The global proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) has prompted nations to grapple with its implications for intellectual property (IP) law, particularly in the context of AI-generated works. While no jurisdiction has yet fully adapted its legal framework to embrace the notion of nonhuman authorship or inventorship, various countries have taken distinct approaches in interpreting, amending, or reinforcing their existing IP regimes in response to this growing challenge. A comparative legal analysis offers valuable insight into how countries are balancing the promotion of innovation with the protection of intellectual property in the age of AI.

The United States maintains a firm stance that only human-created works are eligible for IP protection. The U.S. Copyright Office has clearly stated that copyright protection applies solely to works created by humans. In 2022, it rejected copyright registration for a graphic novel generated by an AI system, asserting that the absence of human authorship precludes copyrightability.[8] Similarly, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and federal courts have refused patent applications naming AI systems, such as DABUS, as inventors, citing statutory requirements that an ―individual‖ must be a natural person.[9] These decisions underscore the U.S. commitment to preserving the anthropocentric foundation of IP law, even in the face of technological disruption.

In contrast, the United Kingdom demonstrates a more flexible legal posture. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 explicitly addresses computer-generated works, providing that the ―author‖ is the person who undertakes the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work. Although originally not designed with AI in mind, this provision has been interpreted to cover works where human intervention is minimal. Yet, this statute still presupposes some human involvement and stops short of acknowledging AI as an autonomous creator. [10] On the patent side, UK courts have mirrored the U.S. in rejecting AI-generated patent applications, emphasizing that inventorship must be attributed to a natural person.

The European Union (EU) is gradually building a regulatory framework to address AI across multiple sectors. While current EU copyright and patent laws continue to require human authorship and inventorship, the European Parliament has acknowledged the increasing role of AI in creative and inventive processes. In a 2020 resolution, the Parliament called for a comprehensive assessment of whether AI-generated content should receive IP protection and urged the European Commission to evaluate potential legislative reforms.[11] Moreover, the proposed AI Act, though primarily focused on ethical and technical standards for AI deployment, hints at future alignment of IP frameworks to reflect the growing autonomy of AI systems in generating novel content.

China, which has emerged as a frontrunner in AI research and implementation, has taken a more adaptive approach to AI and IP. Chinese courts have shown a willingness to grant copyright protection to works generated with the help of AI, particularly where human involvement is present in guiding the output. In the case of Shenzhen Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun, a court recognized the copyrightability of an AI-generated article, emphasizing the creative choices involved in its production.[12] The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has also published draft guidelines suggesting openness to recognizing AI contributions in inventive activity, though not to the extent of conferring legal personhood or inventorship status to AI systems.

Across jurisdictions, there is a common reluctance to legally recognize AI as an author or inventor, largely due to the philosophical and practical implications of extending legal rights to non-human entities. However, the range of responses—from the rigid human-centric position of the U.S. to the more pragmatic stance of China—highlights differing legal cultures and policy priorities. Some jurisdictions, like the UK and EU, are exploring middle-ground approaches that maintain human oversight while acknowledging AI’s increasing role in creative processes.

This comparative landscape reveals that while global consensus on AI and IP is far from achieved, jurisdictions are experimenting within their existing legal frameworks to address the pressing challenges. The divergent responses also underscore the potential value of international collaboration and harmonization. As AI technologies increasingly transcend borders, the lack of consistent IP standards for AI-generated works could create jurisdictional conflicts, hinder innovation, and lead to forum shopping. Therefore, developing a coherent international legal response is becoming an urgent priority for legal scholars, policymakers, and innovators alike.

SUGGESTIONS AND THE WAY FORWARD

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly disrupted traditional notions of creativity and innovation, challenging the adequacy of existing intellectual property (IP) laws worldwide. In India and beyond, legal systems are grappling with the implications of non-human authorship, inventorship, and liability. As AI-generated works become more prevalent, the absence of a clear legal framework creates uncertainty for stakeholders, including developers, creators, businesses, and the judiciary. To address this evolving legal terrain, comprehensive and forward-looking reforms are essential to ensure the legal protection of AI-generated intellectual output while maintaining the fundamental principles of fairness, innovation, and accountability.

A primary suggestion is the establishment of a sui generis legal framework that specifically governs AI-generated content. Traditional IP regimes—whether copyright, patent, or design— require a human originator as a condition for protection. However, many AI systems can now generate literary, artistic, and technological works independently or with minimal human involvement. By introducing a separate legal classification, AI-generated outputs can be granted a form of protection that respects their unique nature without distorting the principles of humancentric IP law. This sui generis system could outline distinct eligibility criteria and a tailored approach to rights ownership, possibly granting limited rights to developers, AI trainers, or users, depending on their role in the creation process.[13]

Secondly, the statutory definitions of ―author‖ and ―inventor‖ in the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Patents Act, 1970, should be revisited to accommodate the realities of AI-assisted creation. While maintaining that AI cannot itself hold rights due to its lack of legal personality, the law could be amended to recognize the indirect human contributions that facilitate the creation of AIgenerated works. For instance, where a human provides the training data, sets objectives, or finetunes the AI algorithm, that individual may be entitled to authorship or inventorship rights. Such amendments would enhance legal certainty and prevent disputes arising from ambiguous ownership claims.[14]

India’s legal system should also consider issuing detailed regulatory guidelines on the classification, registration, and enforcement of rights related to AI-generated content. These guidelines could be developed by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) in consultation with the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM), and other industry stakeholders. Clear regulatory guidance will not only promote consistency in administrative decisions but also support inventors and creators in navigating the complex relationship between AI and IP law.

In addition to legal reform, enhancing documentation and transparency requirements is another necessary step. AI-generated works often emerge from black-box models where the logic behind the output is opaque even to developers. To ensure accountability and traceability, a system of compulsory documentation and metadata recording should be introduced. This includes maintaining detailed logs of AI inputs, training datasets, parameters, and human involvement. Such protocols can aid in determining originality, ownership, and potential infringement, especially in cross-border scenarios.15

Further, a significant challenge lies in the allocation of liability in cases where AI-generated content infringes upon existing IP rights. Current legal standards do not clearly assign responsibility when infringing content is produced by an autonomous system. Future reforms could introduce a framework of shared liability, distributing legal responsibility among AI developers, users, and data providers based on the degree of control exercised over the system. This would promote due diligence in AI design and usage, discouraging irresponsible deployment.

Global harmonization of AI and IP law is another area that demands attention. As technological development transcends national boundaries, the absence of a uniform international legal standard may lead to regulatory arbitrage and inconsistency in protection. India should actively engage in discussions at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) to advocate for the development of internationally coherent norms. A harmonized approach would facilitate mutual recognition of rights and create a stable legal environment for innovators and investors.[15]

Moreover, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration between lawmakers, computer scientists, ethicists, and industry practitioners is essential to designing a robust AI-IP framework. Policymaking in this space must be responsive to technological change while being grounded in legal and ethical principles. Periodic reviews and public consultations should be institutionalized to adapt legal norms in response to emerging challenges.

Public awareness and capacity-building measures also play a crucial role. The judiciary and legal practitioners must be educated on AI technologies to competently adjudicate disputes involving AI-generated content. Law schools, bar councils, and judicial academies should incorporate modules on emerging technologies and their legal implications to build competence in this area.

Ethical considerations must underpin all regulatory efforts. The rise of AI-generated content poses not only legal but also moral questions, particularly concerning data sourcing, cultural appropriation, and human displacement. Ensuring that AI systems are developed and used in accordance with the principles of fairness, non-discrimination, and respect for human dignity is crucial to maintaining public trust in technological innovation. Laws should also promote equitable access to AI technology, particularly for creators and entrepreneurs from underrepresented or marginalized communities.[16]

In conclusion, the challenges posed by AI-generated works to the existing IP regime are not insurmountable. With timely and inclusive legal reforms, supported by regulatory innovation and global cooperation, India and other nations can ensure that the intellectual property system remains fit for purpose in the AI era. A balanced framework—one that nurtures innovation while safeguarding rights—will be key to harnessing the full potential of artificial intelligence in the creative and technological domains.

CONCLUSION

The advent of artificial intelligence has ushered in transformative possibilities across multiple sectors, redefining how creativity and innovation manifest in the contemporary world. AI systems today are capable of independently producing works that were traditionally thought to be exclusively human endeavors, such as literary compositions, artistic creations, and technological inventions. This paradigm shift poses profound challenges to existing intellectual property (IP) frameworks, which have historically been predicated on human authorship and inventorship as the basis for legal protection. Through this research, it has become evident that current Indian IP laws, while robust in many respects, are insufficiently equipped to address the unique characteristics and implications of AI-generated works.

One of the central findings is that the fundamental legal concepts of authorship and inventorship require re-examination in light of AI’s increasing autonomy. The current statutes, such as the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Patents Act, 1970, explicitly mandate a natural person as the originator of protected works and inventions, thereby excluding AI from holding any legal rights.

However, the reality of AI-generated outputs challenges this human-centric approach, raising critical questions about ownership and entitlement. As AI systems evolve, the extent of human involvement may vary from mere facilitation to minimal intervention, complicating the attribution of rights and responsibilities. The ambiguity in authorship leads to potential disputes, which could inhibit innovation and commercial exploitation of AI-generated content.

Moreover, this study underscores that traditional legal thresholds such as originality, creativity, and inventive step are difficult to apply uniformly to AI-generated works. These criteria, developed in an era of human creativity, do not readily accommodate algorithmic processes that synthesize information in novel ways. Without clear guidelines, the validity of protection claims becomes uncertain, creating legal and commercial risks.

Liability and enforcement also emerge as significant concerns. When AI-generated content infringes existing IP rights or causes harm, the current legal system lacks clarity on assigning accountability. The distributed nature of AI development—encompassing programmers, users, and data providers—demands a nuanced approach to liability that balances protection and innovation without stifling technological progress.

Comparative analysis reveals that several jurisdictions worldwide are beginning to experiment with tailored legal reforms and sui generis protections to address these challenges. India stands at a critical juncture where it can benefit from a proactive legislative and regulatory response that not only adapts existing laws but also fosters innovation-friendly policies. Developing a clear legal framework for AI-generated works will enhance investor confidence, promote research and development, and safeguard creators’ rights.

This research recommends the establishment of specialized legal provisions recognizing the unique nature of AI-generated outputs, clarifying the roles and rights of human contributors, and introducing regulatory guidelines to govern AI use and documentation. Further, India’s active participation in international forums to harmonize AI-IP laws will facilitate cross-border innovation and enforcement.

In addition to legal reforms, there is a pressing need for interdisciplinary collaboration involving lawmakers, technologists, ethicists, and industry experts to ensure that policies are comprehensive, balanced, and ethically sound. Enhancing awareness and capacity-building among judicial officers and legal professionals is equally vital to effectively interpret and apply new laws in the AI context.

Ultimately, the integration of AI into the intellectual property landscape represents both a challenge and an opportunity. By evolving its legal framework thoughtfully and inclusively, India can harness AI’s transformative potential while protecting creativity, promoting fairness, and supporting sustainable innovation. This approach will position India as a leader in shaping the future of intellectual property rights in the AI era, ensuring that technological advancement benefits society as a whole.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Name- Anmol kaur

College – Amity University Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior

Topic- intellectual property rights in the era of artificial intelligence  challenges and legal resource

[1] Stuart Russell & Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 4th ed. (Pearson, 2020).

[2] Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law (Cambridge University Press, 2020).

[3] Daniel Gervais, “The Machine as Author,” 70 Emory Law Journal 151 (2019).

[4] Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law (Cambridge University Press, 2020).

[5] World Intellectual Property Organization, “Technology and Intellectual Property Policy,” WIPO Publication No. 1054E (2019).

[6] Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, “Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Rights:

Policy Considerations,” 2022

[7] Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, India, “Consultation Paper on Artificial

Intelligence and Intellectual Property,” 2023

[8] U.S. Copyright Office, “Policy Statement on Registration of Works Containing AI-Generated Content,” March 2023

[9] Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022).

[10] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, UK, Section 9(3)

[11] European Parliament, “Resolution on Intellectual Property Rights for the Development of Artificial Intelligence Technologies,” 2020.

[12] Shenzhen Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun, Shenzhen Nanshan District People’s Court, 2020.

[13] WIPO, “Revised Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence,” World Intellectual Property Organization, 2020.

[14] Kapoor, M. (2022). AI and IP Law in India: Time for Reform? Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 27. 15 Malhotra, R. (2023). Accountability in Algorithmic Creativity: A Legal Perspective. Indian Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 19.

[15] United Nations, “UNCITRAL and the Legal Aspects of AI: Current Developments,” UN Publications, 2021.

[16] Narayan, D. (2023). Ethical Governance of AI in Emerging Markets: The Indian Imperative. Tech & Society Review,

Vol. 11



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here