{"id":4737,"date":"2025-06-12T07:04:41","date_gmt":"2025-06-12T07:04:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=4737"},"modified":"2025-10-30T03:11:50","modified_gmt":"2025-10-30T03:11:50","slug":"ai-generated-works-and-copyright-laws","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ai-generated-works-and-copyright-laws\/","title":{"rendered":"AI-Generated Works and Copyright Laws"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><b>Introduction<\/b><br \/>\nThe rapid generation of AI-based works on a broad scale has challenged the fundamentals of copyright. At the heart of this controversy lies the question of whether a machine can be an author. This article covers the thorny legal and philosophical issues associated with original works created by AI systems either autonomously or with scant human input.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ai-generated-works-and-copyright-laws\/#Historical-Mapping_of_Copyrights_and_Human_Authorship\" >Historical-Mapping of Copyrights and Human Authorship<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ai-generated-works-and-copyright-laws\/#AI-Generated_Systems_Works_and_Their_Conditions\" >AI-Generated Systems: Works and Their Conditions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ai-generated-works-and-copyright-laws\/#Comparative_Legal_Perspectives\" >Comparative Legal Perspectives<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ai-generated-works-and-copyright-laws\/#Doctrinal_and_Philosophical_Challenges\" >Doctrinal and Philosophical Challenges<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ai-generated-works-and-copyright-laws\/#Models_for_Attribution_and_Reform\" >Models for Attribution and Reform<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ai-generated-works-and-copyright-laws\/#Policy_Considerations_and_the_Way_Forward\" >Policy Considerations and the Way Forward<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>As the law itself struggles to resolve this conundrum, its ramifications echo deep into the future of the creative industries, ownership rights, and the very incentives needed to innovate.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Historical-Mapping_of_Copyrights_and_Human_Authorship\"><\/span>Historical-Mapping of <a href=\"\/copyright\/register.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Copyrights<\/a> and Human Authorship<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>In the classical viewpoint, human authors have been the only source of creativity, while copyright laws oblige that assumption. Legally, the concept of an &#8220;author&#8221; has been intertwined with human expression from the Statute of Anne (1710)[1] to the <a href=\"\/copyright\/bern.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Berne Convention<\/a> (1886)[2] and its progeny in tracts amending family countries.<\/p>\n<p>Each time originality has been stressed by the courts, the element denoted the intellectual effort of a human.[3] This part analyzes how these old-fashioned patterns of assumptions have laid an underpinning for the presumption against machines carrying rights or being authors.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"AI-Generated_Systems_Works_and_Their_Conditions\"><\/span>AI-Generated Systems: Works and Their Conditions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>There is a wide variety of AI-generated works, from texts produced by language models to paintings created by neural networks.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>In some cases, AI-generated works are almost autonomous.<\/li>\n<li>In other cases, they are co-created.<\/li>\n<li>The uncertainty in law stems precisely from the inability to describe what is meant by creative input coming from a man as opposed to that coming from a machine.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This section endeavors to classify various outputs generated by AI and consider their consequences on copyright protection.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparative_Legal_Perspectives\"><\/span>Comparative Legal Perspectives<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>A comparison shows that different nations provide varying approaches to AI authorship:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>United States:<\/strong> The U.S. Copyright Office holds that only those works that have been created by humans can be subject to copyright protection. Notable examples include <em>Naruto v. Slater<\/em> and other administrative principles supporting this stance.<\/li>\n<li><strong>United Kingdom:<\/strong> Section 9(3) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides for the person who makes the arrangements necessary for the computer-generated work to be the author.<\/li>\n<li><strong>India:<\/strong> Indian copyright legislation is silent on AI authorship, but courts tend to favor a human-centric interpretation of originality based on human creativity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This section critiques these positions and examines their strengths and limitations in the context of generative AI.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Doctrinal_and_Philosophical_Challenges\"><\/span>Doctrinal and Philosophical Challenges<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The main sticking point in recognizing AI as an author is ontological: AI lacks consciousness, intent, or moral agency.<\/li>\n<li>These factors are fundamental to copyright law.<\/li>\n<li>Philosophically, there is concern that granting authorship to AI could undermine human creativity or create unchecked rights.<\/li>\n<li>Conversely, denying copyright to AI-generated works might hinder innovation or misattribute human collaboration.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This section discusses these doctrinal and ethical tensions.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Models_for_Attribution_and_Reform\"><\/span>Models for Attribution and Reform<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Recognized models for resolving the authorship dilemma include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Human-centric model:<\/strong> Give copyright to the programmer or user.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Joint authorship:<\/strong> Treat AI and human as co-authors, with a legal proxy managing the AI&#8217;s contribution.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Public domain:<\/strong> Exclude AI-generated works from copyright and promote open access.<\/li>\n<li><strong>New rights regime:<\/strong> Create a subgeneric right for AI-generated content.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This section evaluates these models in terms of practicability, fairness, and innovation.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Policy_Considerations_and_the_Way_Forward\"><\/span>Policy Considerations and the Way Forward<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Balanced policymaking is essential to protect human creators, support technological development, and prevent monopolies.<\/li>\n<li>Such policies must be crafted collaboratively by national lawmakers and international bodies like WIPO.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This section suggests policy recommendations that align with legal traditions while fostering innovation.<\/p>\n<p><b>Conclusion<\/b><br \/>\nAI is not merely a tool; rather, an active participant in the contemporary creative process. If the concept requires outputs of a certain nature to be deemed copyrightable, then these AI-generated works necessitate a re-examination of copyright. The law has to be flexible and inclusive, able to keep pace with an ever-changing reality. Instead of forcing AI-generated content into the traditional boxes that the law already recognizes, new categories of creative expression must be legally recognized so that the fundamental principles of IPR are preserved.<\/p>\n<p><b>End-Notes:<\/b><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Statute of Anne, 1710, 8 Ann. c. 19 (Gr. Brit.).<\/li>\n<li>Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Sept. 9, 1886, as revised at Paris, July 24, 1971, 828 U.N.T.S. 221.<\/li>\n<li>Feist Pub&#8217;s, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 346 (1991).<\/li>\n<li>Andres Guadamuz, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright, 39 IIC 541 (2008).<\/li>\n<li>Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).<\/li>\n<li>U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, \u00a7 306 (3d ed. 2021).<\/li>\n<li>Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, c. 48, \u00a7 9(3) (UK).<\/li>\n<li>Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 (India).<\/li>\n<li>Ryan Calo, Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Primer and Roadmap, 51 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 399 (2017).<\/li>\n<li>Pamela Samuelson, Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works, 47 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1185 (1986).<\/li>\n<li>Shlomit Yanick-Ravid &amp; Luis Antonio Velez-Hernandez, Copyrightability of Art Works Produced by Creative Robots, 19 Vand. J. Ent. &amp; Tech. L. 507 (2017).<\/li>\n<li>Tanya Aplin &amp; Lionel Bently, Global Mandatory Fair Use: The Nature and Scope of the Right to Quote Copyright Works, 68 J. Copyright Soc&#8217;y U.S.A. 1 (2021).<\/li>\n<li>Tim W. Doris, AI and the Public Domain, 55 UC Davis L. Rev. 225 (2021).<\/li>\n<li>World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO], WIPO Technology Trends 2019: Artificial Intelligence (2019).<\/li>\n<li>WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property (IP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), WIPO Doc. WIPO\/IP\/AI\/1\/GE\/19\/INF\/4 (2019).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<blockquote><p><strong>Award-Winning Article Written By: Ms.Zaree Shahnaz<\/strong><\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" style=\"border: 0; width: auto; height: auto;\" src=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/images\/ae-1.png\" alt=\"Certificate of Excellence awarded by Legal Service India\" \/><figcaption>Authentication No: JU106500340157-15-0625<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The rapid generation of AI-based works on a broad scale has challenged the fundamentals of copyright. At the heart of this controversy lies the question of whether a machine can be an author. This article covers the thorny legal and philosophical issues associated with original works created by AI systems either autonomously or with<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":29,"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":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4737","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4737","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\/29"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4737"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4737\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4737"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4737"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4737"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}