Inspiration’s spark, a flame so bright,
Captured in the darkest night.
Each stroke, each note, a vision clear,
Deserves protection, far and near.
The recent rise in the use of AI-generated content has led to significant questions about the boundaries of copyright law. Who owns the copyright to the poem above? Is it ChatGPT, or is it the user who instructed ChatGPT to write it? Or does the software developer hold the copyright because their software generated the output?
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has experienced remarkable progress, significantly shaping and transforming our daily lives. In the past, we were limited to using search engines like Google, sifting through numerous search results to find the information we needed. Today, the landscape has changed dramatically. We now have advanced AI-driven chatbots at our disposal, capable of providing instant answers to our questions and generating tailored content based on specific queries. But along with this rise, significant questions regarding the ownership and copyright claim to AI-generated content also arise.
The Current Position of Law
Indian law is currently in the early stages of adapting to the rapid emergence of AI technologies such as ChatGPT, Bard, and others. As these tools gain prominence, the existing copyright framework in India struggles to meet the challenges posed by their rise. Presently, Indian copyright law does not sufficiently address the necessity for copyright registration or protection specifically tailored for AI-generated content. Moreover, the law does not explicitly recognize AI as an author, leading to complexities surrounding the ownership of content created by AI systems like ChatGPT. This evolving situation raises significant questions about authorship and intellectual property rights in a landscape increasingly influenced by artificial intelligence.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held in the historic Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagbaldes Forening ruling that copyright is only applicable to original works that must represent the “author’s own intellectual creation.” Similarly, the Australian Court declined to assign copyrights to AI-generated work in the Acohs Pty Ltd v. Ucorp Pty Ltd case because the work was not created by a person.
AI as an Author?
AI cannot be considered the author of the content it generates, as Section 17 of the Copyright Act stipulates that the individual claiming copyright must be a natural person. Typically, “persons” refer to individuals, although entities like companies can hold copyrights (Section 18) if assigned by the individual through an agreement for a specified period. Furthermore, Section 17 asserts that unless an agreement specifies otherwise, the individual will always retain the initial copyright to the work.
But Can the Programmer Be Granted the Copyright?
Many countries, such as India, Ireland, and New Zealand, grant copyright ownership to the programmer of an AI system. This approach acknowledges that the AI’s existence stems from the programmer’s intellectual creativity. Recently, India adopted this lenient stance by granting co-ownership of the work “Suryast” to the AI RAGHAV, alongside its creator.
Where Does India Stand?
In India, the Copyright Act of 1957 governs the subject matter of creative works. It does not include AI-generated art. According to the act’s Section 2(d), an “author” is anybody who causes the work to be made, including natural or legal persons. According to this concept, AI systems cannot be considered authors. In several rulings, Indian courts have reaffirmed this stance, making it clear that AI systems cannot be regarded as authors of works protected by copyright.
A legal doctrine derived from the United States called “fair use” permits limited unrestricted use of copyrighted content under certain conditions. A work created by AI may or may not be considered fair use depending on several criteria, including purpose, type, quantity, and effect. Transformative use, which adds new meaning or expression to a copyrighted work, is often a crucial factor in fair use analysis.
What Can Be the Way Forward?
To address the legal implications of AI-generated creative works in India, several steps can be taken:
- Update Intellectual Property Rules: As AI technology advances, intellectual property rules should be updated to reflect these developments. This involves identifying and resolving the particular issues with copyright ownership, fair use, and AI-generated material in the digital age.
- Different Standards for AI-Generated Works: AI may be recognized for its contributions using a different standard than that of traditional copyrights, even if it is not given legal standing. This might close the gap without significantly altering the laws and values that are now in place.
- Put in Place Data Usage and Governance Policies: AI initiatives need to follow clear guidelines for data usage and governance. During AI training, these policies ought to have materials for supervision and compliance.
- Hire Compliance Officers: AI companies must be required to designate compliance officers who are in charge of copyright defense, audits, and evaluations. These officials would make sure AI-generated material complied with copyright regulations and spot any possible violations.
Conclusion
Generative AI has become deeply rooted in our lives. As new developments unfold and major tech players like Google and Amazon join the competition, significant growth is anticipated. India’s existing policy of not offering copyright protection for AI-generated content will soon be untenable, as much of the future innovation and creativity will depend on AI to streamline tasks. Opinions on considering AI to be the author of the generated content vary. Some argue it is right as AI compiles data from different sources and produces a new piece of content. Others argue the background of the content provided by AI is not available, raising questions about whether the data comes from one or more sources.
The conversation about copyright and AI is just beginning. As AI continues to evolve, so too must our laws and understanding of intellectual property in the digital age.
