AI Ownership and Authorship: Lessons from Global Jurisdictions For Indian Law

Introduction

The rapid development of AI, with its creative works, conflicts with traditional concepts of authorship and copyright laws. The works produced by AI are sophisticated in nature and are poised to evolve in the world, but these works raise questions about the ownership of the work and who may hold the intellectual property rights. The aim of copyright law is to promote the creative nature of human beings. As AI has evolved in creative roles, there is a minimal distinction between works created by AI and those created by humans. This research aims to answer the question: Can an AI be given authorship for the work it produces? Or the person who gives the commands to AI for the work regarded as the sole author? This question lies at the heart of the intersection of technology and intellectual property laws.

According to the Indian Copyright Act 1957, which has a strong emphasis on the creative, innovative, and human intellectual effort, the recognisability of works has been demonstrated solely on human terms. However, the works of AI and the creativity it fosters, challenge the elements of creativity, innovation, and human intellectual effort in the Indian Act. Since AI has become an active participant in the work,raises the question of whether our current copyright laws are relevant in this digital age.

The brief study of Sections 2(d), 13, and 17 will help us determine the lawful recognition of AI-generated works. There will be further comparative analysis of Indian law with global jurisdictions, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Japanese model, as they have developed distinct notions regarding the ownership of AI-generated works. This analysis will examine how these notions differ from those in India. This comparative analysis would give us different legal approaches used in various jurisdictions and would help modernise the Indian Copyright Act.

Concept of Authorship under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957:

In the Indian Copyright Act 1957, the definition of “author” is provided in Section 2(d), which strongly attributes authorship to humans. This blog will carefully analyse Section 2(d) of the Indian Copyright Act,1957, its limitations in the context of AI, and critically examine its human-centric approach.

According to Section 2(d) of the Indian Copyright Act, the statutory definition of “author” is defined by the nature of the work that has been produced. For example:

• For literary and dramatic work, it’s the writer.
• For musical composition, it’s the composer.
• For Artistic work, it’s the artist.
• For a photograph, it’s the photographer or the person who captures it.
• For computer-generated works, it’s “the person who created the works”.

AI systems like ChatGPT, DALL-E, and Midjourney can create works that human beings are too able to develop, but they lack the elements of creativity, consciousness, and intellectual effort. Therefore, the law attributes the authorship of AI-generated work to the person who created the work using AI or the persons involved in giving commands to AI for a specific task.

In Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 (India)., the Supreme Court emphasised a “modicum of creativity” as essential to copyright protection. This case law is relevant as it directs that AI output often lacks the human creative spark unless directed by a person. Therefore, the human who guides the AI is the “author”. Similarly, in the case of Tech Plus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Jyoti Janda, (2014) Delhi HC (India)., the Delhi High Court recognised authorship to the person who exercises the skill, not merely using automated tools. This case law interprets that the person who causes the AI output retains the authorship, not the AI itself.

Therefore, Section 2(d) preserves the essence of Human creativity; it acknowledges the fact that in an AI-driven world, the authorship remains tied to human judgment, emotion, and intent. AI should act only as an assisting tool, not the author itself.

Section 13- The Gatekeeper of Creativity in the AI Age:

According to Section 13 of the Indian Copyright Act,1957, Copyright protection is given only to “original” literary, artistic, dramatic, musical, cinematograph films and sound recordings that have human intellectual involvement in them. However, AI is capable of producing most of the works; the concept of “original” is redefined. So, Sections hold the power to decide whether to grant copyright protection to specific works or not.

The AI systems are designed to produce work based on existing data present on the internet. When they create new content, they combine existing patterns rather than generating a new, original idea. This leads us to a question: whether such works fulfil the essential requirements of original works of Section 13?

The answer to this question is no, unless there is some human intervention guiding the process. The case of R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118 (India). provides the principle that copyright protects expressions, not ideas. The relevance of this case lies in the principle that when AI generates work based on existing data, it often gathers ideas or patterns that are already available, rather than creating an original idea or expression; hence, it violates the fundamental element of originality outlined in Section 13.

Similarly, the case of University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch 601 (UK). defines the work of originality, not of the copied. This case illustrates that when AI systems use existing data to generate new content, they undermine the very essence of originality and creativity, which is why the human contribution behind the work becomes increasingly important.

Therefore, Section 13 of the Act ensures originality. In the AI era, only human-guided creativity qualifies for protection, keeping human intellectual effort above the collection of data.

Section 17: Who Holds The Right?

Section 17 of the Indian Copyright Act,1957,answers the basic question that the author of the work is the first owner of its copyright. In simple terms, the person who actually creates the work, whether it’s music, art, or a photograph, automatically becomes the owner of that work from the moment it is made. The law doesn’t require any formal process for recognising the owner of that work.

However, there are certain exceptions to these rules. In some cases, the author is not given the ownership of the work that they create. For example, if an employee creates something during the course of their employment, the ownership of the work is usually given to the employer of the employee’s job. In Indian Express Newspaper v. Jagmohan, AIR 1985 515 (India)., the Supreme Court ruled that the articles published by journalists belong to the newspaper unless the newspaper gives authorship to the journalist. The government and public undertaking also use the same principle for recognising the ownership of the work.

Artificial Intelligence, with its development, challenges the concept of “Ownership” of Section 17. Since the entire body of copyright law affords recognition to a human author, AI, which lacks human personhood, cannot be granted the title of “author” under Indian Law.

Comparative Perspective: The US, UK and Japanese models of Copyright Law

There are several perspectives on the ownership of AI-generated works. The first view is that ownership should be given to the person whose command AI creates the work. Another view utilises the concept of the first author, as outlined in Section 17 of the Indian Copyright Act, which grants ownership to the company that owns the AI system.

The US model, however, entirely rejected the work and AI and gave recognition to only a human-centric approach: In Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018) (US)., Thaler v. Perlmutter, 2023 (US)., the courts strictly rejected the copyright claims for AI works, holding that only human-centric works can be granted the privilege of ownership and protection from copyright infringement.

The UK model provides a practical solution, as outlined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, §9(3) (UK)., which recognises AI and computer-generated works and grants ownership to the person who arranges for their creation. But this approach faced several criticisms. In the case of Lucasfilm Ltd. v. Ainsworth, [2011] EWCA Civ 1507 (UK)., the Supreme Court faced difficulties in determining the authorship and ownership of the computer-generated works.

The Japanese model has made significant developments in this area, as interpreted by the ruling of the Japanese Intellectual Property High Court, 2025 (Japan)., which determined that works produced by AI cannot be protected under Japanese Patent Law. The Japanese court will now recognise only humans as the sole inventors and owners of the works, rejecting the ownership of AI-generated works.

Proposed Reforms For Ownership And Authorship of AI-Generated Works in India

India’s Copyright Laws, particularly Sections 2(d), 13, and 17, define “humans” as the authors of the work, protecting the human creative mindset. This leaves a gap for AI, machine-generated works, as only human-centric works are given protection under copyright laws and also creates confusion about ownership when creative input comes mainly from AI. To address this pothole, India should take reforms inspired by International measures.

From the US Model of Copyright Laws, since it emphasises a strictly Human-centric work approach, Indian Laws can strictly confine the ownership to the “Human-Made” work, refusing to give copyright protection to the AI-generated works, unless a human contributes significant input. This ensures that mere AI-generated works without human intervention don’t qualify for copyright protection.

From the UK Model, similar to Section 9(3) of the CDPA Act,1988, Indian Laws could recognise the person or the organisation who makes “necessary arrangements” for the creation of the AI-Generated works, whether it be the programmer or the owner of that very particular AI-system. Basically, the strong emphasis on ownership of the AI-generated work is given to the “First-Owner” of that work.

As the Japanese model involves a significant human involvement in the work to qualify for the protection of Copyright infringement, India could adopt the same principle, as it sees AI as just a sole tool for guidance of the work rather than the sole owner.

These reforms not only help to clear the uncertainty regarding the ownership of the works created by AI or machines, but also modernise the Indian Copyright Act,1957, to deal with future disputes regarding the ownership and authorship of AI-generated works.

Conclusion

In today’s world, where algorithms can also do human tasks, the concept of “Authorship” is also transforming. The Indian Copyright Act, which was formed in 1957, would never have imagined that a time would come when creativity would be shared between humans and machines. India’s Copyright Laws, standing mainly on Sections 2(d),13 and 17, now stand at a critical juncture. By integrating global copyright law models and modernising its copyright laws for the current times, India can introduce clear legal standards for the ownership and authorship of AI-generated content. The basic aim is to integrate the current Copyright Laws with AI, ensuring that creativity continues whether it comes from humans, machines or a combination of both.

References

1. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 (India).
2. Tech Plus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Jyoti Janda, (2014) Delhi HC (India).
3. R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118 (India).
4. University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch 601 (UK).
5. Indian Express Newspaper v. Jagmohan, AIR 1985 515 (India).
6. Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018) (US).
7. Thaler v. Perlmutter, 2023 (US).
8. Lucasfilm Ltd. v. Ainsworth, [2011] EWCA Civ 1507 (UK).
9. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, §9(3) (UK).
10. Japanese Intellectual Property High Court, 2025 (Japan).
11. Indian Copyright Act, 1957, §§ 2(d), 13, 17.
12. United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq. (US).