ISSUES AROUND OWNERSHIP OF A.I GENERATED WORKS AND WEATHER AI CAN BE CONSIDERED AN AUTHOR UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW

INTRODUCTION

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed numerous sectors, including creative industries such as art, literature, and music. AI-generated works, whether created by algorithms or machine learning models, are now an integral part of modern creativity. However, this evolution has raised critical questions about the ownership of these AI-generated creations and whether AI can be considered an author under current copyright law. Traditional copyright frameworks, which are designed to protect the intellectual property of human creators, face challenges when applied to works produced by machines. This research seeks to explore the legal and ethical issues surrounding the ownership of AI generated works. It aims to address the fundamental question of whether AI, as a non-human entity, can be recognized as an author and if not, who holds the rights to the creations it produces.

The ambiguity surrounding this issue has significant implications for industries relying on AI for content creation and innovation, raising concerns about the need for potential legal reforms in copyright law to account for the growing role of AI in creative processes. In India, the Copyright Act of 1957 defines "authorship" in terms of human creativity, requiring original works to be attributed to a human author. However, the growing use of AI complicates this framework. When an AI creates a painting, writes an article, or composes music, questions about authorship and ownership come to the forefront. Who should hold the rights to such works —the AI's developer, the user, or perhaps no one at all? Additionally, if AI cannot be considered an author, should the work fall into the public domain or be treated under a different legal regime? This research will explore the current state of Indian copyright law concerning AI-generated works, the potential implications for AI developers and users, and whether Indian law should evolve to address the unique challenges posed by AI creativity.

WHAT IS COPYRIGHT LAW?

Copyright law is a form of intellectual property law that protects original works of authorship, such as literary, artistic, musical, and certain other intellectual works. It grants the creator exclusive rights to use, distribute, and modify their work, ensuring they can control how it's shared and monetized.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT

The main goal of copyright law is to encourage the creation of original works by granting authors or creators exclusive rights, allowing them to benefit economically from their creations. This protection is essential for fostering creativity and supporting the arts, education, and culture. Copyright covers a wide array of works, including literary works (e.g., books, articles), artistic works (e.g., paintings, sculptures), musical compositions, films, software, and certain forms of media and broadcast content.

• Copyright holders enjoy several exclusive rights, such as:
• Reproduction: The right to make copies of the work.
• Distribution: The right to sell or distribute copies to the public.
• Derivative Works: The right to create adaptations or derivatives, such as translations or sequels.
• Public Performance and Display: The right to publicly perform or display the work.

DURATION OF COPYRIGHT

Copyright protection typically lasts for the life of the author plus a certain number of years, often 70 years in many jurisdictions. However, there are variations: works created for hire, anonymous works, or those created by corporations may have different durations. After this period, the work enters the public domain, meaning it is free for public use without the need for permission or payment.

COMPLEXITIES OF COPYRIGHT LAW IN RELATION TO AI.

Artificial intelligence (AI) intersects with the copyright law and this, among other factors, poses a number of challenges with respect to authorship and ownership, which today, by and large are also relevant to the law in India. The general position with regards to copyright law in India, as is the law in many countries, is that copyright exists in favour of a human who creates original work. One such area that AI tools are impinging upon is creating these human-dominated domains such as writing, graphic design, producing music, programming codes, etc. However, this leads to an important question: Has AI become an author in the legal sense? Or are rights always with its creator, user or even the AI technology owner?

The Copyright Act of 1957 in India defines an "author" as human, which creates obstacles to allocate copyright to AI systems. This way of thinking means that works made with the help of AI sit in the grey area as the existing law has no provisions for authors other than humans. Indian copyright law, on the other hand, requires “skill, judgment and labor” in the creation of a work which is not synonymous with any AI system in the conventional sense. These limitations bring forth discussions as to whether AI created works can be original works that are copyrightable.

The issue of ownership for AI-created materials in India is also controversial and has a profound impact. If AI is not capable of authorship, then the question arises of who owns the rights – the developer of the AI, the end user who applies the AI to create work or the owner of the AI. This confusion is of particular importance because AI is dynamic and it is growing its application within the creative industry with substantial implications in media and publishing, software development etc. In the absence of a legal framework, the conflicts concerning ownership and distribution of rights are likely to increase and as a result, implementing copyright and safeguarding intellectual property will be problematic.

OWNERSHIP ISSUES, EXPLORING OWNERSHIP RIGHTS IN AI GENERATED WORKS.

Ownership rights in AI-generated works are an evolving and complex issue, as traditional copyright frameworks do not easily accommodate works created autonomously by machines. In the context of AI, the question of who owns the rights to AI-generated content—whether it’s the creator of the AI, the user who operates it, or the organization that deploys it—depends on multiple factors, including the level of human involvement, contractual agreements, and regional copyright laws.

• The Creator of the AI: One argument is that the creator (programmer or developer) of the AI system could hold ownership rights, as they are responsible for designing the algorithms and processes that enable the AI to generate content. This perspective suggests that the intellectual property invested in creating the AI extends to any output it produces, similar to how inventors might hold rights to the products made by machines they design. However, this view is limited by the degree of control the creator has over the specific content produced by the AI; once deployed, many AI systems operate semi-autonomously, reducing the direct creative input of the developer.
• The User of the AI: Another argument is that ownership rights might belong to the user who instructs the AI to generate specific works. This approach aligns with the idea that the user initiates the process, providing prompts, parameters, or training data that influence the final output. In cases where the user’s guidance significantly shapes the content, they could claim a level of ownership. For example, an artist using an AI tool to create digital art may consider themselves the "author" because they provided creative direction, even though the AI performed much of the execution. However, this claim to ownership is still uncertain under most copyright laws, as users do not directly control the AI's internal decision-making process.
• The Entity Deploying the AI: In corporate or institutional contexts, the entity that deploys and owns the AI system (such as a tech company or content production studio) could be considered the owner of any AI-generated works. This view is especially relevant when the AI is developed and used as part of the organization’s operations. Here, the argument hinges on the idea that the entity has invested resources into the AI system, and thus should retain the rights to its outputs as part of its intellectual property. This approach is commonly seen in employment contexts where companies own the works created by employees on the job, though it remains untested with non-human creators.

These perspectives each present their own limitations. For example, assigning ownership to the creator might make sense in terms of innovation protection but fails to address specific contributions of users or organizations that fund the AI's deployment. On the other hand, assigning ownership to users or deploying entities challenges traditional copyright notions of authorship, especially when AI operates independently to generate complex content. As a result, many legal frameworks, including Indian copyright law, have yet to resolve these issues definitively.

LEGAL DEBATES ON AUTHORSHIP: CAN AI BE RECOGNIZED AS AN AUTHOR?

The question of whether AI can be recognized as an author under copyright law is at the centre of legal debates on the ownership and protection of AI-generated content. Traditionally, copyright law, including that of India, has been built on the concept of human authorship, where the creator of an original work is granted exclusive rights. This concept raises challenges when applied to works autonomously created by AI systems, as these systems lack human qualities such as intention, creativity, and originality in the traditional sense. Indian law, like that of many countries, does not currently recognize non-human entities as authors, and this limitation creates a complex legal gap for AI-generated works.

COPYRIGHT ELIGIBILITY AND INDIAN LAW

Under the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, copyright protection is granted to original works, including literary, artistic, musical, and cinematic works, provided they meet the criteria of originality and creativity. The Act defines an "author" specifically in terms of human creators. This human-centric approach restricts AI from being legally considered an author, as it lacks consciousness, intent, and human authorship traits that the Act implicitly requires. The law’s language emphasizes human involvement, making it difficult to apply directly to works generated by AI without substantial human input.

The "sweat of the brow" doctrine, once used in Indian copyright law to protect works based on effort and labor rather than originality, has been largely replaced by a focus on creativity and originality, as defined by the Indian Supreme Court in cases like Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2007). In this landmark ruling, the Court held that originality in copyright law requires creativity, not just labor, a standard that AI systems typically cannot fulfill independently, as their outputs are based on pre-existing data and algorithms rather than unique human expression.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COPYRIGHT ELIGIBILITY IN INDIA

In India, the current copyright framework implies that AI-generated works, if entirely autonomous, would not qualify for copyright protection. However, when human involvement plays a significant role in the creation process - such as setting parameters, choosing input data, or providing iterative guidance - there is a stronger case for copyright eligibility. In such cases, copyright may be granted to the human user who directed the AI’s output, rather than the AI itself, effectively treating the AI as a tool rather than an author. This limitation creates significant uncertainty for creators, organizations, and developers, as the lack of clear ownership rights can complicate enforcement, attribution, and compensation for AI-generated works. Some experts argue that legislative reforms are needed to recognize AI’s role in the creative process while assigning ownership to humans in a manner consistent with traditional copyright principles. However, this would require careful balancing to prevent unintended consequences, such as the over-attribution of rights or the devaluation of human-created works.

CASELAWS

1. 1.  Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd. (1989)

In this case, the court dealt with questions of copyright ownership and authorship in a scenario where the original creator was deceased. Although the dispute involved human authorship, it set an important precedent regarding authorship attribution, which can be applied to discussions on AI. The court ruled that copyright ownership defaults to a human entity and that any non-human claimants to authorship are outside the scope of Indian copyright law.

• Relevance to AI: While this case did not address AI directly, it reinforced the notion that Indian copyright law requires human authorship, even for complex collaborative works. In the context of AI, this case suggests that an AI system itself cannot claim authorship. Any copyright in AI-generated works would therefore likely need to be attributed to a human or legal entity involved in the creation process, such as the programmer or user who influenced the AI's operations.

1. 2.  RG Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978)

This case examined the threshold of originality and the concept of substantial similarity in copyright infringement. The Supreme Court ruled that for a work to be original, it must be more than a simple copy or mechanical reproduction of another work. Rather, there must be evidence of creative contribution, even if minimal.

• Relevance to AI: This case is relevant in evaluating AI-generated works, especially those that are derivatives or recombination’s of existing data. Since AI often generates content based on training data, it raises questions of whether the resulting output is a mere reproduction or if it embodies a unique transformation that might be considered "original." The RG Anand ruling implies that, without meaningful human input, AI outputs may be considered insufficiently original under Indian law if they merely replicate patterns from training data without any independent creative input.

1. 3.    Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2007)

This landmark case centered on the originality requirement in Indian copyright law, which is essential for any work to qualify for copyright protection. The case involved the publication of judicial decisions, where the defendant claimed that the arrangement of headnotes and text in judgments lacked originality. The Supreme Court of India ultimately ruled that copyrightable works require a "modicum of creativity," establishing that copyright cannot be granted solely based on "sweat of the brow," or mere effort

• Relevance to AI: This case is significant because it clarified that originality under Indian law requires creativity, not merely mechanical or routine work. This precedent implies that AI-generated works—if produced autonomously without creative human intervention— may struggle to qualify as original under Indian law. As AI lacks subjective creativity, works it generates independently would likely fall outside copyright protection unless a human has played a significant role in shaping the output.

CONCLUSION

The changing face of AI and who owns the copyright examines the transition of outmoded contemporary copyright systems to the realities of present-day creativity in an age dominated by AI technologies and systems. Copyright as accepted in India is premised on the ideas of human agency, authorship, creativity, and originality. Current status does not allow copyright to any work produced by AI lest that work is executed by human beings. Laws and case law support the position that human beings are necessary components for protection of a work under copyright laws since it requires some level of creativity from the human being to transform a given idea into the work. For that reason, works of art created purely by an AI are most few if any likely falling within what is claimed as protection resulting in conflicts on who owns what with respect to such creations. In case there is human involvement in the work performed by an AI machine for instance by directing the machine or by being the developer of the machine, it may be possible to grant copyright to such people but this is granting copyright is quite vague and not guaranteed.

The issues related to ownership of rights in works created by artificial intelligence systems continues to be problematic and context specific. According to contemporary legal interpretations, the rights of an author may be attributed to the designer of the artificial intelligence system, the person who starts the process of content creation or deployment, or even the organization employing the technology, depending on how much human agency, the purpose of the AI and any relevant contracts are present. In the absence of specific regulations, there will be a rise in conflicts concerning rights over creations and their enforcement in the works of art and business bearing AI developed content.

SUGGESTIONS AND CONTRIBUTION

1. Authorship in Copyright Law towards an expansion: It would be interesting to find out if and if so, how the scope of copyright law may be extended to include those who do not have a physical form. Research should include hybrid modes of authorship in which both human and AI systems are credited as co-owners, especially where creative AI systems are used as enablers.
2. Aesthetic Appropriation of Robotic Works: Better definitional clarity regarding ownership rights related to robot creations is particularly essential distinguishing between individual and group settings. The policy may include a definition of ownership as that of the human creator primarily responsible for the work, the human creator who contracted out the work to an AI system and the client for whom the work is done.
3. Emma's Assessment of the Economic and Ethical Rationales: The economic effects of whether to extend copyright to works created entirely by AIs should be an important subject for policymakers to examine. Policymaking should also address ethical issues such as the potential for machines to be supplied with attributive credit as creator and how such measures will affect human creators and ensure fairness in the creative competition.
4. Study of other countries: The study of AI and copyright in other countries would be helpful to India. Countries appreciating some element of inter territoriality in AI copyright policy would be at ease with any AI content exportation from their country.

💬Law Notes

Author: Ms. Aisha Abdulgafar Bello

5th Year Law Student @ Marwadi University,

India.