INTRODUCTION
The intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property law has become a pressing issue in today’s digital age. Historically, intellectual property (IP) law has been grounded in the principle that all creations stem from human intellect[1]. Be it inventions, literature, music, or art — the law has consistently recognized humans as the sole originators and owners of intellectual creations. A copyright essentially gives the creator the right to copy and control how their work is reproduced[2], and such copyright protection begins the moment the work is created. However, with the rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI), this foundational concept is being put to the test. Now, with the growth of highly advanced chatbots, such as ChatGPT, Gemini AI, it is capable of producing certain works which were earlier only possible by human intellect. For example, just typing in ChatGPT, “write a poem on love” it will create one. Now, this is where the question arises, who is the owner of the copyright?
Whether ChatGPT can be, considered to be the owner as it is the one which has created the poem. Or whether the person who entered a couple of lines asking ChatGPT to create the poem could be, considered to be the owner of the copyright.
WHEN AI CREATES: WHO HOLDS THE RIGHTS?
A major challenge emerging today is whether outputs generated entirely by AI — with no human intervention — qualify for protection under IP law. In earlier times, even if technology assisted the creative process, humans were always at the centre. Tools like music software or graphic design programs merely complemented human creativity. But today, with AI systems capable of independently producing novels, art, music, and even inventions, the human creator is no longer a necessary component.
This evolution prompts essential legal and philosophical questions: Who is the rightful owner of a creation without a human author. According to section 17 of the Indian Copyright Act[3], only persons can be authors. Therefore, ChatGPT creating a poem cannot be considered to an author as the Indian Copyright Act permits only natural person to be authors of a work. Originality is a fundamental requirement in copyright law, traditionally interpreted as a reflection of individual effort and intellectual labor. So, when a work is completely produced by an AI technology, there is no originality itself, thereby negating any copyrights, to the AI which creates the work.
Now the second question which arises is whether, the person who has used AI, to create a work can be considered to be the owner. Section 2(d)(vi) of the copyrights act, provides that, authorship of computed-generated works belongs to the person, who caused the creation. But however, entering a single line, and making the AI technology to create something, is not sufficient to grant copyright protection. India recognizes the principle of “sweat of the brow” doctrine[4], whereby a person can be, considered to be an author based on the effort put in the work by him. So, when a person simply types a line in the and make an AI like ChatGPT to create a poem, he has not put in any effort towards the work. Therefore, he cannot be considered to be the owner of the copyright.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AI-GENERATED WORKS AND AI-ASSISTED CREATIONS
Now, it is quite clear that AI-generated works are not copyrightable, if they are created entirely without human authorship. But what if a human significantly contributes to the creative process and uses AI as a tool in the process, then would the resulting work be eligible for copyright?
In the landmark case of Li vs Liu, decided by the Beijing Internet Court, in 2023[5], the court heard and clarified this issue. In the case, Mr. Li used Stable Diffusion to create an AI-generated image of a young woman. He entered a series of detailed prompts like, “cool pose”, “film grain” etc., thereby modifying the image in a particular manner to reach a desired aesthetic output. Later, he posted the image on a social media platform, tagging it with #AI and some other related hashtags.
Mr. Li then discovered that Mr. Liu had reproduced and published the same image on a different platform without permission. Mr. Li sued Liu for copyright infringement. The court recognized that, Mr. Li did not merely copy from an existing source, he had designed the image and gave specific prompts, and also refined them after reviewing preliminary outputs, all of which demonstrated a significant intellectual and aesthetic contribution by Mr. Li. Thus, the court found that Mr. Li exercised creative control in producing the image. The court, therefore, confirmed that the image qualified as “work of fine arts”, and that it was copyrightable, and Mr. Li owned the rights.
This judgement is one of the first to explicitly recognize AI-generated content as copyrightable, provided there is sufficient human input. But currently India does not yet fully recognize AI-generated works as copyrightable in the same way that the Beijing Internet Court did in Li v. Liu.
In India, a painting named “Suryast” was created by an AI tool named RAGHAV[6], which was developed by a software engineer Raghavendra, in 2020. The AI tool was designed to autonomously generate artworks using algorithmic programming and machine learning. A copyright registration was filed by Raghavendra for the painting created by the AI tool, by naming the AI tool “RAGHAV” as the author of the work. Interestingly, the Indian Copyright Office also granted registration, thereby recognizing the AI-generated artwork, as an original piece worthy of copyright protection. However, later the Copyright office re-examined the registration, and revoked the copyright, clarifying that only human authors can be granted copyright protection under Indian law, and that The Copyright Act, 1957, does not recognize non-human entities — such as AI systems — as legal persons capable of holding rights[7].
So presently there is a lack of clarity on how much human input is enough to meet the “originality” threshold, and there is no specific guideline on AI generated works. India is closely watching global developments, and the Indian Copyright office has yet to formally accept any AI as an author. However, it is likely that human-AI collaboration (where a person exercises creative judgment) may be recognized as copyrightable in future rulings or legislative updates.
ECONOMIC AND ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF AI-GENERATED CONTENT
Beyond legal concerns, the growing influence of AI-generated content brings to light several economic and ethical challenges. As artificial intelligence advances to replicate human creativity in fields such as literature, visual arts, music, and journalism, it raises important questions about its impact on creative professionals and the ethical standards of content creation.
From an economic perspective, AI-generated works pose a real threat to traditional creative sectors[8]. Organizations and digital platforms are beginning to favour AI tools for their ability to produce content rapidly and at low cost. This could significantly reduce opportunities for human artists, writers, musicians, and designers, who may find it difficult to compete with the volume and speed of machine-generated output. Moreover, the influx of AI-created content could saturate creative markets, potentially diminishing the value and uniqueness associated with human expression.
The question of accountability and ownership further complicates the situation. When AI produces content that infringes on existing intellectual property, it remains unclear who bears responsibility—the developer of the AI system, the individual who provided the input, or the entity deploying the platform. Such ambiguity disrupts licensing processes, revenue distribution, and enforcement of rights.
On the ethical front, the use of generative AI prompts serious concerns around authenticity and misuse. Technologies are now capable of recreating voices of deceased artists, imitating writing styles, or generating photorealistic synthetic images. Without proper legal checks, this can lead to ethically questionable practices such as deepfakes, spread of false information, or unauthorized replication of an individual’s identity—potentially eroding public trust in media and artistic authenticity.
Another concern is the ethical use of training data. AI models often learn from large datasets scraped from the internet, which include copyrighted works and user-generated content—frequently without consent. This practice blurs the lines between fair use and exploitation, especially when outputs closely resemble the styles or ideas of living creators.
In light of these concerns, it becomes essential for policymakers to look beyond traditional intellectual property rules. A more comprehensive regulatory approach is needed—one that also addresses the economic displacement of creators and the ethical integrity of content. Striking a balance between technological advancement and the protection of human creativity will be key to navigating this evolving landscape responsibly.
CONCLUSION
Indian copyright law is still in the early stages of adapting to the emergence of generative AI tools like Bard and ChatGPT[9]. The legal framework remains rooted in traditional notions of human authorship, leaving limited clarity on how such AI-generated or AI-assisted works should be treated under existing statutes. The advent of artificial intelligence is reshaping long-standing ideas about authorship and originality in intellectual property law. While some countries, such as China, have started to acknowledge copyright protection for works created through significant human interaction with AI, India continues to adhere to the traditional view set out in the Copyright Act, 1957—reserving authorship solely for human creators. The Li v. Liu decision signals an international trend toward accepting human-guided AI creations, whereas the RAGHAV case in India highlights a more conservative stance, reinforcing that legal authorship remains the domain of natural persons[10].
Despite this, the absence of explicit legal guidance on AI-assisted creativity in India cannot continue indefinitely. As AI tools become more sophisticated and start playing a larger role in the creative process, the Indian legal system will eventually need to establish clearer frameworks—either through legislative amendments or judicial interpretation—to differentiate between AI-generated content and human-AI collaborative works. A nuanced approach that values human creative contribution, even when assisted by AI, may help preserve the integrity of originality while adapting to technological change. In the meantime, creators using AI must tread carefully, ensuring their involvement reflects genuine intellectual input to secure copyright protection under current laws.
[1] Ostergard, R.L., 1999. Intellectual property: a universal human right?. Human Rights Quarterly, 21(1), pp.156-178.
[2] Fishman, J.P., 2014. Creating around copyright. Harv. L. Rev., 128, p.1333.
[3] The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14, § 17 (India).
[4] Saksena, H., 2009. Doctrine of Sweat of the Brow. Available at SSRN 1398303.
[5] Beijing Internet Court Releases Translation of Li vs. Liu Recognizing Copyright in Generative AI, China IP Law Update (Jan. 31, 2024), https://www.chinaiplawupdate.com/2024/01/beijing-internet-court-releases-translation-of-li-vs-liu-recognizing-copyright-in-generative-ai/.
[6] Ranjan, R., 2024. Artificial Intelligence Generated Works and Copyright Law. Available at SSRN 4892545.
[7] Isohanni, P., 2021. Copyright and human originality in artistic works made using artificial intelligence.
[8] Hamroyev, A., Kalandarova, S. and Abdullayev, U., 2024. HOW AI TOOLS CAN BE A THREAT TO HUMAN CREATIVITY. Академические исследования в современной науке, 3(26), pp.5-10.
[9] Vig, S., 2024. Intersection of generative artificial intelligence and copyright: an Indian perspective. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management.
[10] BAMAL, A. and SHERWANI, D.S., THE EVOLUTION OF AI IN THE COPYRIGHT DOMAIN: THE ARTISTRY OF ALGORITHMS.