Who is the owner of AI-Generated Works? A close analysis of the Indian Copyright Act

By /

Written by Srishti Singh,
Gujarat National Law University, Silvassa,
June 2026

Introduction

The way creative content is created has been revolutionised by the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI systems are now becoming more and more engaged in tasks traditionally perceived as human, such as the production of literary texts, creation of visual art, musical composition and legal text writing, among them. The increasing use of Generative AI has raised  legal and ethical issues in terms of ownership of the technology, authorship and IP rights. The ownership of AI-generated works of art is a topic of debate. The paradigm for traditional copyright law is the creative work as the product of the human brain. But AI-generated outputs question this assumption as the finished piece can be created with little or no human involvement. An important question is now raised: Who should be deemed the author and copyright holder of AI-created content? If it is the developer of the AI system, the user who instructs it or a none of the above? The article looks at the nature of such a role in Indian copyright law and discusses the legal issues raised by the works created by AI.

 What is the Copyright?                                                      

Copyright is a statutory right that authors of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works enjoy. In India copyright protection is provided by the Copyright Act, 1957. The Act specifies that authors of various types of works have exclusive rights of reproduction, communication, adaptation and distribution. Authorship is a very fundamental element of copyright law. Throughout history, the law has been formulated to give credit to human creativity and intellect. The legal rules on authorship typically consider a human author who uses skill, labour, and judgment to create a work. One of these is in the Copyright Act itself, in section 2(d) (vi):

“For a computer-generated work, “the author will mean the person who caused it to be created.” It may have been around before the advent of modern generative AI, but the rule has gained more significance in today’s conversations on AI and creativity.

Does AI deserve to be considered an author?

Currently, Artificial Intelligence is not considered a legal person in India. Copyright is the exclusive right of the legal personality of the copyright holder, and currently has no legal framework that recognises AI as the owner of copyright or as an author. The case of AI authorship sparked a debate that captured global attention, led by Stephen Thaler. The controversy around AI authorship came to the forefront of global attention with the DABUS litigation that Stephen Thaler started. Thaler tried to argue that an AI system (called DABUS) can be the inventor of patentable creations. In several jurisdictions the courts and patent offices refused to recognise it, reasoning that a patentable inventor must have legal personality. The rulings were consistent with a broader guideline that machines are not yet on their own able to own intellectual property rights. The rationale behind these decisions is also applicable to the copyright law. While AI systems might produce complex outputs, they don’t have legal identity, consciousness, or legal rights. As a result, AI is not a rights-bearing entity, but rather a tool to be used.

The Indian Position and the RAGHAV Controversy

This sparked a lot of interest in the Indian copyright landscape when an application for an art work created using an AI system named RAGHAV claimed that both the creator, Ankit Sahni, and the AI system were the authors. There was a great debate at the registration about whether or not it is possible to accept AI as a co-author. But the lawfulness of this registration is not clear. The legal issue of authorship does not necessarily get resolved through administrative registration. Indian courts have not been definitive on whether an AI system can be considered a co-author. The registration should thus be understood as an ongoing legal debate, not as a recognition of AI authorship.

The controversy, however, illustrates the conflict between the old copyright laws and new technological facts. The ownership of Training Data and Source Materials will be determined. Ownership of Training Data and Source Materials will be agreed. The other key topic is that of the materials used for training AI systems.

 Generative AI models are trained on large amounts of data, which can contain books, articles, images, music and more. There is often doubt over whether the copyright owner of training materials has any rights to the outputs generated by AI. Copyright typically covers the way in which something is expressed, not the ideas, themes and information themselves. Thus, if the AI-generated output is simply a pattern that it has learned and is not an exact reproduction of a protected expression, the copyright owner of the original material may lack a valid claim over the AI-generated output. But there are legal issues if AI generates a significant copy of copyrighted content. In these situations, there could be a copyright claim, as the resulting content may be based on a protected expression instead of just ideas. The difference between inspiration and reproduction is thus vital as far as liability and ownership are concerned.

Originality and Human Contribution

Originality is a key aspect of Indian copyright law. In Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak the Supreme Court stated that copyright protection would not be deemed to be flowing if there is not an adequate level of creativity, skill and judgment. Just any effort is not enough to prove originality. This is especially true for AI-generated content. When the AI is capable of creating a complete work based on a simple command entered by the user, questions might arise about the level of human involvement. On the other hand, when the user makes detailed prompts, edits outputs, selects content and has creative judgement during the process, it is more likely for human authorship to be recognised. When deciding who owns the AI, then, it shouldn’t be just about its usage. Rather, it should focus on the kind and amount of human intellectual effort in the creation of the finished piece.

Understanding the importance of prompt engineering.

As AI systems become more complex, prompt engineering has become a niche speciality. The user often puts in a lot of work in the preparation of instructions, the development of the outputs, and the guidance of the creative process. A copyright issue here is whether or not the prompt creators should be credited as the author. There can be a strong case that prompts that have significant creativity and where the user contributes to the product and is involved in its final creation are not necessarily expressions of machine, but of human intellect. There is some support on this side from Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, which gives authorship of computer-generated works to the person who caused the work to be created. Many times, the person who triggers the prompt and guides the creative process could fulfil this requirement. However, the level of contribution required to define authorship is not clear and will likely be determined by courts.

 The Future of Litigation and Emerging Challenges

The law of copyright is now coming into conflict with AI, as demonstrated by recent litigation. A significant incident is the controversy between ANI Media and OpenAI over the copyright issues in using their content for AI training. This type of conflict shows that copyright issues of the future will not just be about ownership of the product, but more often about what is legal to do, how to do it, and what is fair usage. These questions are being debated in courts around the globe, and the outcomes will have an impact on the evolution of AI legislation. Policy dialogue and expert consultations are also underway in India to tackle these concerns. Given the increasing role AI is playing in creative sectors, legislation might be needed to define authorship guidelines, ownership precedents, and responsibility structures.

Conclusion

With the advent of generative AI, basic principles of copyright law have been called into question. Though AI systems can create highly complex content, the prevailing legal framework in India still prioritizes human creativity as the core of copyright protection. The current system prohibits AI from having its own copyright due to its lack of legal personality. Normally, the strongest claim to authorship attaches to the human individual who applies skill, judgment and creativity to the creation process. Simultaneously, the copyright holder of training materials could have legal options if the AI-generated work is based on a protected expression. Despite this, the law remains in flux. Issues of AI-generated works, training data sets and prompts are still emerging. These challenges are faced by courts and policy makers, and India must draw out a well-rounded approach that allows room for technological innovation while safeguarding the core principles of copyright protection. AI is ultimately a strong creative assistant and not a legal author. So, until the law explicitly states otherwise, the human intellectual contribution will continue to be the fundamental criterion for copyright ownership of works created with AI.

References

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *