Abstract
"The quill now sleeps, while circuits craft the page, Yet who doth own the words, the bot or sage?" -William Shakespeare
The above line means that while AI now creates content instead of humans, it's unclear who truly owns the work, the machine or the mind behind it.
But only true Shakespeare fans will know the lines above weren’t written by Shakespeare, but by an AI based on a prompt. And that’s the core of this article: Who owns such content? The AI that wrote it, the person who gave the prompt, or the one who built the AI? As AI begins to create like humans, the line between creator and tool becomes harder to define. Even if we see AI as a contributor, the fact remains, it pulls ideas from countless works already out there. That brings us to a tricky space where it's hard to tell what's genuine inspiration and what might cross the line into copyright violation.With respect to Indian law, Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957 doesn’t directly mention AI as an author. However, Section 2(d)(vi) states that “about any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created” is considered the author. This opens up an important question-Does AI fall under the definition of a “computer” in this context?
Then there’s the role of prompts. If we look at Section 2((ffc), a “computer program” is defined as “a set of instructions expressed in words, codes, schemes or in any other form, including a machine-readable medium, capable of causing a computer to perform a particular task or achieve a particular result;”. Technically, prompts used to instruct AI fit this definition. That makes it possible, perhaps even tempting for someone to argue that AI-generated work qualifies as a computer program and claim rights over it. This creates a legal grey area where the lines between authorship, instruction, and ownership can easily get blurred.
Keywords- 1) Co-authorship of AI 2) Prompt giver 3) Inspiration v Infringement 4) Intellectual Property Rights and AI, 5) Human- AI teamwork
INTRODUCTION
There’s no global consensus yet on recognising AI as an author under intellectual property law, though some countries are beginning to adapt to the challenges posed by generative AI. One major issue is whether AI-generated content is even eligible for copyright protection. A key example is the case of the painting Suryat, inspired by Van Gogh’s Starry Night, created in 2021 by Ankit Sahni and an AI system named RAGHAV (Robust Artificial Intelligent Graphics and Art Visualizer). Initially, the Indian Copyright Office rejected the application when RAGHAV was listed as the sole author. Later, even its co-authorship was withdrawn. Officials referred to Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957[1] specifically clauses (iii) and (vi) which define the author as either “the artist” or “the person who causes the work to be created” in case of computer-generated content. Since AI wasn’t seen as either, RAGHAV couldn’t be credited.
However, Sahni pointed out a key gap: the Act doesn’t clearly define who or what qualifies as a ‘person,’ leaving the door open for interpretation. Interestingly, Canada took a different view and granted copyright to both Sahni and RAGHAV as co-authors.[2] Cases like this continue to raise important questions if AI creates something original, who owns it: the AI, the user, or the creator of the AI?
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AI AND IPR
Artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly challenged the traditional understanding of copyright law, which has always been based on the idea that only humans can be creators.[3] Today, AI systems can write music, draw, and even produce written content that looks and feels like it was made by a person. These creations would usually be protected by copyright if a human had made them. However, because the law is built around human authorship, it struggles to deal with works created by machines. [4]
This issue is often called a “creativity crisis” in copyright law. One of the most well-known examples is the case of Dr. Stephen Thaler, who tried to register a digital artwork created by his AI system, the “Creativity Machine.” [5]The U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application, saying only works made by humans can be protected. Thaler argued that the AI should be recognised as the creator, forcing the legal system to deal with complex questions about authorship. At present, the law takes a middle path. It allows protection for AI-generated works only if a human has added enough original or creative input.[6] This means AI is seen as a tool like a paintbrush or a camera rather than an author in its own right. However, as AI becomes more advanced and begins to create content with minimal or no human help, this approach may no longer be enough. Lawmakers will need to decide whether to change the meaning of authorship to include AI, create a new category of rights for such works, or stick with human-only rules, even if that leaves some creative output unprotected. In this way, AI is no longer just a support tool it is beginning to act like a creative partner, and the law must evolve to address this shift.
India’s Patents Act, 1970, only recognises human inventors, making it hard to deal with inventions created by AI. The 161st Parliamentary Standing Committee[7] noted that the law lacks clear provisions for AI authorship. In cases like DABUS [8], where AI generates inventions on its own, Indian law still requires a human to be named as the inventor, highlighting the need for legal updates to address this gap.
India’s Trademark and Designs laws face new challenges with AI in the mix. The Trademarks Act expects human intent behind brand names or logos. While humans can still apply for AI-generated marks, issues arise when similar designs are produced by different users using the same AI tool raising doubts about originality and distinctiveness. The Designs Act also struggles. Section 2(d) clearly states that only a "person" can be an author. But AI can now create unique, visually appealing designs on its own. This means that even when human input is minimal, a person still has to claim authorship, making the law feel out of step with how designs are actually being created today.
DOCTRINES – IS PROMT GIVER THE OWNER?
India has followed the “sweat of the brow” rule for a long time, where a work is original if the person has put in effort and skill, even if it’s not very creative. But with AI, things get tricky. Just giving a prompt doesn’t really show much effort or skill, so it may not meet the requirement. If AI were seen as the author, then its own effort and processing could count. So, whether this rule applies to AI-generated work depends on if future laws decide to treat AI as an author.[9] One may be tempted to think that this clarifies the position of law in India as the ‘prompt-giver’ is causing the work to be generated. However, entering a single-line prompt is not enough to grant copyright protection to a work. Protection under copyright law is granted to an author if their artistic work/product meets the requisite standards to constitute an ‘original’ product.
In 2004, Canada’s Supreme Court found a middle ground with the “skill-and-judgment” test, later adopted by India’s apex court. A work need not be brand-new, but it cannot be the product of mindless routine either; it must show the creator’s skill, effort, and judgment. For AI-generated content, that means asking how much human guidance shaped the final output. Because the test also warns against mere mechanical exercise, the real puzzle is gauging the balance between the machine’s automated work and the user’s guiding hand.
AI AS THE CO-AUTHOR
Indian copyright law keeps authorship strictly human.[10] Section 17 makes it clear that only a “person” that is, a natural human can be the original author, so ChatGPT (or any AI) simply doesn’t qualify. While Section 18 allows a human to assign their copyright to a company for a set time, that transfer happens after authorship is established; the company never becomes the first owner. [11]Unless a contract says otherwise, the individual creator always holds the initial copyright. In short, the entire Act is written with people, not machines, in mind. In accordance with The Copyright Act of 1957, it states that AI cannot own anything, therefore infringing work would belong to the individual who controls the system, so whoever owns the system or gives control to the AI would possess the work. [12]
IS AI DEVELOPER THE OWNER?
Imagine using Microsoft Paint to create a digital painting. Just because the tool is made by Microsoft doesn’t mean they own the art you made with it.[13] The creativity,the real spark,comes from the person using the tool, not the tool itself. AI works the same way. Platforms like OpenAI are just providing the medium, like a digital canvas. What you make with it reflects your ideas, your input, and your choices. So giving developers copyright over that would be like crediting the brush instead of the artist.[14]
RESOLUTION
Instead of treating AI as a separate author or inventor, a better approach could be to build a system that recognises different levels of human-AI teamwork. The Indian government already believes that current copyright and patent laws can handle AI-created work with some adjustments, not a complete change.[15]
This approach would set clear rules based on how much the human contributed. If a person adds strong creative input and uses AI just as a tool, they would get full protection like in joint authorship. But if the human role is small and the AI does most of the work, the protection would be limited or even denied. This kind of tiered system keeps human creativity at the centre while still recognising the growing role of AI in creating new things. In Navigators Logistics Ltd. v. Kashif Qureshi, a copyright claim made on a list compiled by a computer was rejected due to a lack of human intervention. It was held that human involvement in the creation process is essential for the grant of copyright protection in India.
CONCLUSION
A practical way forward could be to introduce a new, limited category of protection just for AI-generated works something similar to how database rights work in Europe. This would give some recognition to AI-created content, without granting it the full weight of traditional copyright. The idea aligns with the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s suggestion to update the Patents Act, 1970 and the Copyright Act, 1957 to better address the rise of AI. These rights could be more modest, shorter in duration and narrower in what they cover offering a middle ground that protects innovation without stretching existing laws too far.
When it comes to protecting the intellectual property rights of authors in the age of AI, the solution isn’t about fully recognising AI as an author or completely rejecting its role. Instead, the focus should be on building flexible legal frameworks that can adapt to new technologies while keeping human creativity at the core. The growing use of generative AI has forced a fresh look at how copyright and IPR systems function, bringing up important legal and ethical questions that can’t be answered with simple yes-or-no rules.
What’s needed is a balanced approach one that allows for shared creativity between humans and AI, with clear guidelines on ownership and attribution. This means lawmakers, courts, tech developers, and industry players must work together to create fair and workable standards. The aim isn’t to solve every possible issue right away, but to address the most urgent, real-world challenges that authors, inventors, and creators now face in a rapidly changing creative landscape.
Work Cited
[1] The Copyright Act, 1957, § 2(d), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India), available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1655540
[2] Sukanya Sarkar, Exclusive: India recognises AI as co‑author of copyrighted artwork, Managing IP (5 August 2021) https://www.managingip.com/article/2a5bqo2drurt0bxl7ab24/exclusive-india-recognises-ai-as-co‑author-of‑copyrighted‑artwork
[3] U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (webpage), U.S. Copyright Office AI Initiative (launched early 2023, Parts 1–3 published, current as of June 2025).
[4] U.S. Copyright Office, “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence – Part 3: Generative AI Training (Pre‑Publication Version)” (9 May 2025), A Report of the Register of Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office.
[5] Vallari Sanzgiri, “India’s Copyright Laws Well‑Equipped to Deal with Generative AI Content” (8 Feb 2024), MediaNama.
[6] Law.asia, “AI’s Right to Copy: Generative AI & Copyright Law” (19 Sept 2024), Law.asia.
[7] Negar Bondari, “AI, Copyright, and the Law: The Ongoing Battle Over Intellectual Property Rights” (4 Feb 2025), IP & Technology Law Society Blog, Gould School of Law, USC.
[8] Matt Blaszczyk, Geoffrey McGovern & Karlyn D. Stanley, “Artificial Intelligence Impacts on Copyright Law” (20 Nov 2024), RAND Corporation Perspective Paper, PE‑A3243‑1.
[9] Sharma, Himanshu. “Sweat of the Brow: An Approach in Contrast to Minimum Creativity.” Copyright – India, 4 Nov. 2013, www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/272382/sweat-of-the-brow-an-approach-in-contrast-to-minimum-creativity.
[10] K. Muehlfeld, “Intellectual Property Rights in China: A Literature Review on the Public's Perspective”, Frontiers in Sociology. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2022.793165/full.
[11] Aparajita Lath, “AI Art and Indian Copyright Registration” (10 Oct 2022), SpicyIP.
[12] S.S. Chauhan, “India: Patent Eligibility of AI-Related Inventions” (29 Sept 2023), Managing Intellectual Property. Available at: https://www.managingip.com/article/2c8q22uq5bhkzgreo35s0/sponsored-content/india-patent-eligibility-of-ai-related-inventions.
[13] Harshal Chhabra & Kanishk Gaurav Pandey, “Balancing Indian Copyright Law with AI‑Generated Content: The ‘Significant Human Input’ Approach”, Indian Journal of Law & Technology (website, 26 February 2024) https://www.ijlt.in/post/balancing-indian-copyright-law-with-ai-generated-content-the-significant-human-input-approach
[14] Harshal Chhabra & Kanishk Gaurav Pandey, “Balancing Indian Copyright Law with AI‑Generated Content: The ‘Significant Human Input’ Approach” (26 Feb 2024), Indian Journal of Law & Technology (IJLT) Blog.
[15] Aakriti Bansal, “India Forms Committee to Examine AI’s Impact on Copyright Law” (May 2025), MediaNama.