ABSTRACT
The rapid development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transformed the creation of literary, artistic, musical and digital content. However, it has also raised important questions concerning authorship, ownership and copyright infringement. The Copyright Act, 1957 recognises computer-generated works under Section 2(d)(vi), identifying the person who causes such work to be created as its author. However, the provision does not clearly say who owns the work when it involves generative AI systems. This article looks at the Indian legal system that deals with AI-created content the difference, between AI-assisted works and AI-generated works and the problems related to originality, who owns the work and using copyrighted material without permission. It argues that India requires clearer legal standards to balance technological innovation with the protection of human creators.
INTRODUCTION
Artificial Intelligence is no longer limited to performing automated tasks. Tools capable of generating photographs, articles, music, paintings and even computer programmes have significantly changed the creative industry. A user can now produce an artwork or a literary composition through a simple text prompt without possessing specialised artistic or writing skills.
This development raises a fundamental legal question: if an AI system creates a painting or writes an article, who owns the copyright? Is the one who gives the instruction the user, the developer who designs the artificial intelligence system or the artificial intelligence itself?
The Copyright Act, 1957 is an act which came into being much before the advent of generative artificial intelligence. Even though it talks about computer-generated works, the act does not take into consideration the various nuances involved in artificial intelligence-generated works.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides copyright protection to original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recordings. Originality is therefore an essential requirement for copyright protection.
Another significant section in regard to this question is Section 2(d)(vi), which defines the author of a computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work to be the person who causes the work to be made. Hence, it could serve as a starting point for human involvement in AI-generated content.
Furthermore, Section 17 stipulates the basic principle that in general, the author will be the first owner of the work unless any exception is provided in the Act. In other words, if the human user falls under the purview of Section 2(d)(vi) then he would be the first owner of such a work.
But the problem is that it becomes hard to determine who actually caused the AI-generated work to be generated. The legislation does not expressly clarify which level of involvement is sufficient to establish authorship.
AI-ASSISTED WORKS V. AUTONOMOUSLY AI-GENERATED WORKS
A distinction must be drawn between AI-assisted and autonomously AI-generated content.
In AI-assisted creation, a human exercises meaningful creative control over the final work. For instance, an author may use AI to generate suggestions but independently write, edit and organise the final article. Likewise, an artist can make use of an AI-generated image as the raw material and significantly alter it using their creativity.
Copyright protection would be available in such circumstances for the underlying human element if the conditions set out by the statute are fulfilled.
Conversely, where an AI creates an image or piece of literature or composition on its own with minimal human creative input, finding the human author would become a challenge. Giving a command does not necessarily entail a sufficient creative element. It is still uncertain whether the creator, user, or someone else falls within Section 2(d)(vi).
JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND EMERGING LEGAL QUESTIONS
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1, would be relevant while deciding originality under Indian copyright law. According to the ruling, copyright protection would require the use of skill and judgment and the presence of some level of creativity in the work. Labor or effort alone would not suffice.
Although the judgement does not talk about artificial intelligence per se, the originality test laid down by the Court would become relevant while determining if there is enough human element of creative involvement to confer copyright protection to AI-generated outputs.
ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI OpCo LLC, CS(COMM) 1028/2024 is a recent development in this area which was decided by the Delhi High Court on 24 July 2026. The issue involved the alleged infringement of ANI’s copyright on news by using it to train AI models. At the interim stage, the Court held prima facie that storage of ANI’s copyrighted works for training of OpenAI’s large language models would fall under research exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act and denied interim injunction sought by ANI. The matter is pending before the Appeal Bench and the matter is pending further hearing with the Division Bench refusing interim relief at the stage on 15 September 2026 and listed for hearing on 8 December 2026.
WHO SHOULD OWN AI-GENERATED CONTENT?
The following are three possible options in figuring out the ownership.
Firstly, it can be said that the person using the technology and exercising his creativity for the creation of outputs shall be regarded as the owner. It takes into account human intervention and calls for the judicious use of technology.
Secondly, ownership might lie with the developer of the technology. But being the creator of the technology does not mean that the developer himself has been contributing to the creation of every output created through the technology.
Thirdly, ownership can also be based on the agreement reached between the developer and the user regarding commercial rights and uses of technology.
Most importantly, it should be noted here that an AI system cannot become the owner of the copyright under the present Indian law. Thus, it is important to note that what needs to be asked is not about the ownership of AI, but about the human creator.
WAY FORWARD
India requires better guidelines for the issue regarding the connection between human creativity and the creation of content by AI systems. The following three points will be helpful:
- Guidelines for authorship: Clause 2(d)(vi) needs to have more guidelines stating in which situations a user, creator, or any other participant would be the person who causes the computer-generated work to be produced.
- Identification of human contribution: The legislation needs to differentiate between human creative contribution and automatic generation, and the copyright needs to be awarded only when there has been some sort of human creative contribution, regardless of how basic the input was from the person involved.
CONCLUSION
Artificial Intelligence presents problems for the conventional understanding of authorship, yet it is certainly not making copyright laws redundant. In this regard, the Copyright Act of 1957 presents an initial point to start from, but with its Section 2(d)(vi). A balanced approach must protect genuine human creativity without discouraging technological innovation. Ultimately, copyright ownership should depend on identifiable creative contribution and the requirements of law, rather than simply on who owns the technology or operates the software.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY- PRIYANSHI CHOUDHARY
