Examples of Models<\/td> ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\nEven data protecting techniques like Technological Protection Measures (TPMs)<\/strong> are ineffective against TDM as TPMs control actions like viewing, copying, downloading, or printing. Measure like Data Rights Management (DRM) techniques used on Netflix, Amazon Kindle so the user won\u2019t be able to pirate the content. As the AI model isn\u2019t pirating or storing the data but learning the data in the real time. This technological gap shifts question from access control to whether such learning itself amount to copyright infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\nCopyright violation of the authors and creators of literary works. These models are trained on expressions and not the idea, and copyright protects expression. These gen AI models can generate content that can replace books, articles, etc. Concerning this, DPIIT proposed a solution, \u201cHybrid Model.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/span>The Hybrid Model<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nIn the working paper, they have proposed a \u201cHybrid Model.\u201d<\/strong> In this model, a statutory blanket licensing with remuneration right will be imposed, Creators will not be able to withhold their work for use in the training AI system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training (CRCAT)<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nCopyright Royalties Collective for AI Training (CRCAT), a non-profit entity will be created by associations of rightsholders, Collective Management Organization (CMOs) and will be designated by the central government under Copyrights Act, 1957 to collect the royalties and further distribution to authors and creators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Membership of CRCAT<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nMembership of CRCAT<\/strong><\/span>Royalty Setting and Distribution<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nRoyalty setting and distribution.<\/strong><\/span>Structural Flaws in the Proposed Hybrid Model of Copyright Remuneration<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n\nMandatory Licensing Without Opt-Out Weakens the Property of the Nature of Copyright<\/strong>Royalty Distribution Inequality<\/strong>Structural Flaws in Revenue Attribution System<\/strong>Absence of Detailed Usage Monitoring<\/strong>Governance and Risk of Institutional Capture<\/strong>Incentive Misalignment<\/strong><\/span>Conclusion<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe working paper is accepting the responses and it\u2019s not the Hybrid model won\u2019t be the final mechanism. The Hybrid model does solve the lawful data access problem of AI developers, by introducing blanket licensing, but it undermines the core principles of copyright i.e. exclusivity to use the work, reproduction and moral rights. A redesign, considering all the issues can make this model work. A reasonable opt-out mechanism which should narrow the scope for AI bias and preserve the value of the copyrighted work, meanwhile full disclosure of the data sets so that creators and authors would be fairly compensated and this will preserve moral rights, creator\u2019s dignity. This will also help the royalty model to work at its most efficient form rather than disproportionately benefiting the sheer mass and huge size of archives. The flat rate system fails to account for global AI market and legal disputes around the globe. This gets developer exposed to double payment for the data sets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>References<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\nhttps:\/\/www.dpiit.gov.in\/static\/uploads\/2025\/12\/ff266bbeed10c48e3479c941484f3525.pdf\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This article attempts to critically analyse the working paper published by Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade. It proposes a hybrid model in the working paper, which applies the mandatory blanket licensing. The article critically analyzes this model and their after effects.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":953,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-13879","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13879","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/953"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13879"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13879\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}