The increasing popularity of artificial intelligence (AI)-based applications and emerging Indian start-ups has transformed the way individuals present themselves online. From WhatsApp and Instagram to LinkedIn and dating platforms, users are increasingly opting for AI-generated profile pictures that offer stylized, enhanced, and often artistic representations of their identities. This cultural shift reflects not only technological advancements but also the growing demand for personalization and digital self-expression in India’s rapidly evolving online ecosystem. However, the use of AI to generate these images introduces a host of complex legal and ethical questions.
A central issue is authorship and ownership—whether the rights in these outputs rest with the user who provides the photographs or prompts, the AI company operating the application, or the underlying AI system itself. Beyond ownership, concerns also extend to how platforms and app developers may subsequently use, reproduce, or even commercialize these images. In India, the regulatory environment surrounding such questions remains nascent.
Key statutes such as the Copyright Act, 1957, contract law principles embedded in user agreements and terms of service, and judicial pronouncements on privacy and personality rights provide some guidance, but the absence of direct statutory clarity leaves much room for interpretation and legal debate.
The Copyright Act 1957 governs ownership and protection of creative works in India, and its interpretation in the context of AI-generated outputs is still evolving. Under Section 2(d)(vi), for computer-generated works, the “author” is defined as the person who causes the work to be created. This provision becomes particularly relevant for AI-generated profile pictures, where the boundaries of authorship are blurred.
A central question arises: does a user who provides an input image or prompt “cause” the work to be created, or does the software developer, who designs and trains the AI system, hold a stronger claim? Indian law does not provide a direct answer, leaving considerable ambiguity. Unlike the United States, where the Copyright Office has clearly denied protection to works lacking human authorship, Indian law recognizes computer-generated works, thereby opening the possibility of granting protection if a human contribution can be established.
In practice, the determination of authorship may depend on the extent of human involvement. If a user exercises creative judgment by selecting styles, modifying outputs, or choosing among variations, their role could be interpreted as sufficient creative control to qualify as the author. Conversely, when the AI application functions in an entirely automated manner, generating results without meaningful human input, ownership claims by the software company or developer may carry greater weight. As of now, no Indian court has directly ruled on AI authorship, creating a gap in case law.
Courts may, however, rely on analogies with software copyright cases and international approaches to resolve disputes. The likely position under Indian law is that authorship—and thus copyright ownership—would vest in the party exercising real creative control, whether that is the user in cases of active input or the developer where the process is entirely automated.
In practice, the ownership and use of AI-generated profile pictures are often governed more by platform terms of service (ToS) than by statutory copyright principles. Most Indian users, eager to access such apps, accept these terms by clicking “I Agree” without reviewing their implications. Typically, ToS may assign copyright to the user but simultaneously grant the platform a broad license to use the images for marketing or training purposes. Some apps go further, claiming exclusive ownership of all outputs and granting users only a limited, personal, non-commercial license.
Others reserve the right to reuse or even sell generated images for AI training or third-party licensing. Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, such agreements are enforceable unless they are unconscionable or contrary to public policy. Courts in India have generally upheld online contracts where user consent is evident, though greater scrutiny applies in consumer protection cases. Consequently, even if copyright ownership rests with the user under the Copyright Act, contractual terms may practically shift control to the platform, giving it significant reuse rights.
Whether platforms can reuse or sell AI-generated profile pictures depends primarily on the scope of rights granted through their terms of service (ToS). If users agree to broad licensing clauses, platforms may legally repurpose outputs for purposes such as training future AI models, incorporating them into advertising campaigns, or even commercializing stylized outputs through third-party licensing. However, in the absence of such express provisions, platforms risk infringing upon user rights. Unauthorized use could amount not only to copyright violation but also to an infringement of personality rights where the likeness of an individual is involved.
Indian constitutional jurisprudence provides strong protection in this regard. The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, which extends to control over one’s personal identity and image. Further, Indian courts have upheld the right of publicity as part of personality rights, as seen in ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises and Titan Industries v. M/s Ramkumar Jewellers. These decisions establish that an individual’s likeness cannot be commercially exploited without consent. Thus, while contractual clauses may permit reuse, platforms must tread cautiously, as unauthorized commercial exploitation of AI-generated profile pictures could invite privacy or publicity rights litigation.
India’s judicial and regulatory landscape on AI-generated works remains unsettled, with no precedent directly addressing ownership or rights in such outputs. Courts are likely to draw guidance from comparative jurisdictions—the UK’s approach, which attributes authorship of computer-generated works to the person causing their creation, and the US stance requiring strict human authorship. India may adopt a middle path, balancing human involvement with the enforceability of platform terms of service.
On the regulatory front, the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) has expressed concerns over AI misuse, deepfakes, and data exploitation, but no dedicated AI law exists. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, however, provides safeguards by mandating informed consent for processing personal data, including images. Thus, unauthorized reuse of AI-generated profile pictures for training or commercial purposes could expose platforms to liability under data protection norms.
To address the growing legal uncertainties around AI-generated profile pictures, clear policy and best practices are essential. For users, it is important to carefully review terms of service before generating images, avoid platforms that claim broad ownership rights, and preserve records of inputs or edits to support authorship claims. For platforms, transparency is key—ownership and reuse rights should be clearly stated, with users offered opt-out options for training or resale of their data.
Platforms must also comply with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 by ensuring consent-based processing of personal data. For lawmakers, clarifying Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act to expressly cover AI-generated works, introducing provisions recognizing human-assisted authorship, and enhancing consumer protection against exploitative contractual terms would provide much-needed legal certainty.
In India, ownership of AI-generated profile pictures lies in a grey zone. The Copyright Act potentially allows user authorship for computer-generated works, but platforms often control practical rights through contracts. Privacy and publicity rights under constitutional and judicial recognition provide additional safeguards. Until Indian courts and legislators step in, the safest approach is contractual clarity and informed consent. The debate around consent, copyright, and control in AI images is not just a legal puzzle — it is central to how Indian users can retain agency over their digital identities in the age of generative AI.
References
- Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (2018).
- NITI Aayog, Responsible AI for All: 2021 Report.
- Lok Sabha Debates on the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023.
- G. Bhatia, The Right to Privacy in India: Reading Puttaswamy (Indian Constitutional Law Review, 2018).
Written By: Aashank Dwivedi, a Scholar from Dr. BR Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat.
