The world has changed a great deal since Artificial Intelligence (AI) was first introduced and treated merely as a computer program1 and AI-Generated works. Raising a host of questions about copyright, originality, and authorship.2 Since copyright law is originally designed to reward human creativity by granting monopoly markets to creators of original work to give them a profit incentive to continue to invest in their intellectual model3.
The two basic questions, therefore, are: 1) whether such works are entitled to copyright protection, and 2) who would hold the copyright, leaving many uncertain as to the precise parameters of the assessment and resulting in a piecemeal approach by various legal jurisdictions 4. Our findings will thereafter be subject to some policy-based commentary in relation to their regulation.5
Authorship and Originality in Copyright Law
Two principles form the base of Copyright Law: authorship and originality 6. Originality was explained in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. by evidence of independent creation and satisfactory evidence of two elements of creativity: quality or ingenuity and commercial value 7. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak reiterated that the skill and judgment of a human author brought to bear at every stage of development 8.
Thus, Copyright Law is, as of now, strictly anthropocentric, and does not recognise any AI system as a creator or author9. The concept of authorship is very closely linked to human personality, intention, and accountability.10 In R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, the Supreme Court of India held that copyright subsists in original work produced by authors through their intellectual effort and creative genius.
Legal Status of AI-Generated Works
Works created with the assistance of AI are legitimate and considered AI creations that have copyright protection by those who view art with a more expansive definition. Works created completely alone by a machine, however, are more legally questionable.11
The U.S. Copyright Office (2023–2024) states that copyright can only subsist in a work that is a human-authored work12. Similarly, Thaler v. Perlmutter held that works entirely authored by entities other than humans are not entitled to copyright protection, further establishing that human ingenuity is a necessary factor in works receiving protection under copyright13.
Comparative Legal Approaches
Differing laws in countries and jurisdictions address issues of artificial intelligence and creative output produced by AI.
Unlike the approach taken in the United States (i.e., that human authorship is a requirement for copyright protection), under the copyright laws of the United Kingdom and India,14 decisions is considered the author under both the United Kingdom’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (found at Section 9(3)) and the India Copyright Act 1957 (found at Section 2(d)(vi)).15 as it relates to the growing number of modern artificial intelligence systems under the Copyright Act of India.16
| Also, know more about Copyright Objection
Normative Debate: Should AI-Generated Works Be Protected?
The generated works and whether they should be granted Copyright protection17. As it stands, developers are spending billions of dollars on training complex algorithms.18 On the other hand, granting Copyright to AI-generated works can be seen as illogical, as Copyright is a human-oriented right that should not extend to the works of machines.19 However, if computers were given copyright, this would undermine the philosophical basis of copyright and lead to overprotection. 20 21, and only the input of substantial human effort is eligible for protection to remain within the bounds of copyright theory.22
Challenges in Existing Frameworks
This lecture addresses the many challenges that the rapid growth of creative works made by artificial intelligence presents to the copyright doctrine, including the current law’s failure to recognize creators other than humans and the newly raised problems of moral rights to creation, including the right of creation and the right of integrity23.
A comparative analysis of Section 9(3) Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (‘CDPA 1988’) in the UK, with the ‘authorship’ requirements of copyright law in the United States of America, and the authors of unoriginal work generated by computer technology under copyright legislation in India reveals that whilst Section 9(3) of CDPA 1988 provides practical solutions whilst at the same time affording flexibility in certain circumstances where there is no real creativity involved24. Authorship under copyright legislation in the United States ensures that there is no vacuum in copyright protection, even in respect of works generated by technology. 25
Reform Proposals with Special Reference to India
Firstly, the Parliament needs to clarify the scope of Section 2(d)(vi)26. The control and human contribution in the creation of such works27. Thirdly, while AI is still in its formative years, although such works may not be entitled to all the rights afforded to an original work, they would have exclusive rights granted to them.28 transparency conditions of creators must be legally recognized to disclose whether their work contains any. Artificial Intelligence-generated content or not.29 India should also join the bandwagon of international efforts directed towards harmonization of laws dealing with Artificial Intelligence by attending meetings of WIPO, etc., to frame a uniform global legislation on the subject.30
Ethical and Policy Considerations
How fair is it when an artist’s work is produced by a computer? As human creative work becomes more expensive, AI has stepped in to fill the gap as a relatively efficient method to create original and marketable content.31 But as creative work slips into the commodity market, undervaluing human creative work is the very least that is unfair32, then that too could be seen as unjustly enriching the artist, and pushing the boundaries of fair use well beyond their intent.33 How will lawmakers and scholars address the artistic works produced by AI? 34
Conclusion
While such works are unpatentable, this does not necessarily mean that they should be beyond the reach of copyright.35 However, such works raise new questions as to what we mean by authorship, originality, and ownership under copyright laws, which were devised with human creators in mind36. However, it is also possible to keep copyright law relevant by adopting a balanced approach to AI-generated content and by making some legislative amendments to copyright laws in jurisdictions such as India.37 Copyright and art created with AI assistance is an emerging issue. Namely, where is copyright law going, and how will it reconcile its purpose of protecting human creators with the coming inevitability of AI.38
1 (Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot (2020).)
2 Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903).
3 Id.
4 Jane
5 Id.
6 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).
7 Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
8 Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 1
9 Annemarie Bridy, Coding Creativity, 2012 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 5
10 Justin Hughes, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property, 77 Geo. L.J. 287 (1988).
11 Andres Guadamuz, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright, 2017 WIPO J. 1.
12 U.S. Copyright Office, AI Guidance (2023–2024).
13 Thaler v. Perlmutter, 687 F. Supp. 3d 140 (D.D.C. 2023).
14 U.S. Copyright Office Compendium (3d ed. 2021).
15 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, § 9(3).
16 Copyright Act, 1957, § 2(d)(vi).
17 Abbott, supra note 1.
18 Id.
19 Hughes, supra note 10
20 Id.
21 Ginsburg & Budiardjo, supra note 4.
22 WIPO Policy Paper (2024)
23 Ginsburg & Budiardjo, supra note 4.
24 Bridy, supra note 9
25 Copyright Act, 1957, § 57.
26 Copyright Act, 1957, § 2(d)(vi).
27 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, § 9(3).
28 WIPO, AI Policy Developments (2024).
29 OECD, AI Policy Framework (2019).
30 WIPO, supra note 29.
31 Abbott, supra note 1.
32 Ginsburg & Budiardjo, supra note 4
33 Id.
34 WIPO, supra note 29.
35 Bridy, supra note 9
36 Hughes, supra note 10.
37 Guadamuz, supra note 11.
38 WIPO, supra note 29