Introduction
Today in the era of evolving technologies the legal world faces a critical question: Can AI-generated content be given protection under copyright law? With the rapid growth of generative AI tools, where they are capable of producing art, music, literature, and even code, Artificial intelligence continues to diminish the lines between human and machine developed creativity, many jurisdictions remains grounded to the traditional legal framework that acknowledges only human authorship. Certain recent judicial judgments of United States and United Kingdom have resurrected the global debate, making it crucial to evaluate how different countries are dealing with the complexities of AI and copyright law.
I. The Human-Centric Foundation of Copyright Law
At the centre of copyright protection lies the main idea of originality and authorship, concepts rooted to human creators from the past. Most of the legal jurisprudence of copyright laws, directly or indirectly, assumes that a work originates from a natural person. The basis is simple: copyright law was created to promote human intellectual and creative labor, not some machine created algorithmic output.
But what happens when a machine, without direct human input, creates a painting, composes a song, or writes an article?
II. The US Approach: Strict Human Authorship
Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023)
The US District Court for the District of Columbia, in its landmark decision, ruled in the case of Thaler v. Perlmutter that a artistic work if generated by an AI system (Creativity Machine) than this could not be considered for copyright, as it lacks a human intellect. The court held that:
“Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright”
An AI system was developed by Stephen Thaler, which independently generated an artistic piece of work titled ‘A Recent Entrance to Paradise’. He applied for copyright registration, naming the AI as the author and himself as the owner. The copyright office of US rejected the application, by stating that copyright protection is applied only to the human created work.
US Copyright Office Policy (2023)
Following this, the US Copyright Office issued guidance clarifying that:
- Human authorship must be identified while claiming Copyright.
- Works generated without the human input, entirely by AI, are not copyrightable.
- However, depending on the level of creative control, AI-assisted work within human-authored elements may be eligible.
Summary:
The US, although it allows limited protection where AI is used as a tool rather than an independent creator, adopts a clear human authorship threshold.
III. The UK Approach: Legal Recognition but No Ownership for AI
The UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 includes a unique provision, unlike the US:
Section 9(3): “In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
This indicates a level of legal recognition of computer-generated works to some extent, but in reality, AI as an independent author.
Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents (UK, 2021)
Although it was related to patents, the UK courts in this case backed the essentiality of a human inventor/author, rejecting the claim that AI could be named as an inventor under UK law. This ruling represents the same natural person standard upheld in copyright.
Summary:
The UK, regardless of having somewhat broader statute that allows computer-generated works, still roots authorship to a human operator or controller, not the AI itself.
IV. India and Other Jurisdictions: The Gray Zone
India
Copyright Act, 1957, of India does not directly include or excludes AI from the definition of “author”. While computer programs are protected under the law, there is no legal framework/provision for AI-generated work. Although, courts have not yet addressed this issue directly, Indian laws still expects a human author.
Possible application can be through:
- Section 2(d): Defines “author” for various works (eg, composer, artist).
- In the case of computer-generated works, the person who causes the creation may be considered the author.
Canada
Like the US, Canada, follows a human-centric approach, demanding “skills and judgment” for a piece to be considered original, as per CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada. Thus, independent AI works are not likely to be get protection under Copyright laws.
European Union
The EU Copyright Directive, at present, does not currently accommodate AI authorship. However, the European Parliament has called for Preliminary discussions on adapting IP laws to AI realities. As of now, the EU maintains the originality requirement based on human intellectual creation, making fully AI-generated works ineligible.
V. Key Legal and Policy Questions
- Should AI be considered as an author under Copyright law?
- Granting AI authorship raises concerns about liability, accountability, and moral rights.
- However, denying protection may discourage investment in AI-generated content.
- Who will own the output of AI-generated works?
- Developer? User? Data trainer? These questions remain unresolved.
- Amount of human involvement is needed for copyright?
- Is a simple prompt enough? Or must the human exercise creative control?
- Is sui generis protection the answer?
- Some scholars propose creating a new category of rights for AI-generated works, separate from traditional copyright.
VI. The Road Ahead: Global Harmonization or Fragmentation?
As AI’s abilities are evolving, copyright frameworks around the world must consider whether to:
- Amend existing laws to include AI as an author,
- Recognize AI-assisted works with human oversight,
- Or create new legal categories altogether.
There is also a threat to jurisdictional fragmentation, as protection can exists in some jurisdictions but not others, making enforcement tough in the global digital economy.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding AI and copyright triggers the core of intellectual property law: the correlation between creativity, ownership, and human engagement. While in countries like UK and US the traditional boundaries of human authorship is maintained, the law is being tested and questioned by the rise of AI creativity. As this legal area continues to evolve, lawmakers, courts, and creators will have to strike a balance between the core values and structure of copyright law.
Author- Somya Kataria, Student at Amity University Madhya Pradesh
Link to similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/ai-generated-content/
Link to the copyright act: https://www.copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copyrightrules1957.pdf
