The rapid rise and reliability over artificial intelligence (AI) tools like Midjourney, and ChatGPT has paved nuanced ways and methods for content writing, stimulating the legality over copyright protection. Traditionally formulated copyright laws, designed for human authorship, now face challenges in obtaining ownership for AI- generated work and content. The reliability over AI created content in the creative field now poses a responsibility over the legal framework to evolve and address the prospective issue surrounding intellectual property rights.
AI creates content by generating text, images, audio, and video without any human interventions. The two important fundamental requirements of copyright law, originality and human authorship; whereas the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works provides that copyright protection cannot be applied unless the works have been expressed in some considerable way and human authors to be the subject to copyright. AI-created content has the potential to disrupt the fundamentals of copyright law.
The two important things that need to be focused on the AI-created content are if an AI can be considered as an author, the next question is of the ownership of the content created by AI. Many countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, European Union, China, and Japan have tailored to changes' laws and regulations. The rest of the countries consider human authorship to be one of the essential requirements.
Copyright law protects creative works, e.g., books, musical compositions, visual art, films, broadcasts, and databases. It protects the economic and moral rights of the creators of the creative works. It provides creators with exclusive rights such as permitting the licensing and compensation in return, supports the development of creative industries. AI encourages the productivity and innovation ability of authors, whereas their creative content promoted the advancement of AI. It also causes a massive push to AI because the creators can easily access the data of others. On the other hand, creates disturbances to the business model of the creative industries.
NAVIGATING THE COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AI AND COPYRIGHT LAW:
The dawn and progress of Artificial Intelligence have created numerous issues within the domain of intellectual property rights. AI has automated processes and minimized human error and significantly increased efficiency in several industries, including creative fields. Despite such progress, there has been a debate regarding the Intellectual Property rights over the creative works created with AI. And this has shown how age-old laws are beginning to show limitations when faced with technological advances of the modern world.
To provide you with a broader perspective on the issue, do you know that John McCarthy first coined the term 'Artificial Intelligence in 1956? Even with this fact, laws across the world have still not been able to give a proper and definite meaning to this term.
AI now usually has the power of thought and cognitive abilities as advanced as human beings. It can collect knowledge, process information, and even recognize patterns. Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines the meaning of author. It has a broad interpretation and list of various works that can be termed as creative works include computer program or software. This list of creative works, according to the act, is inclusive in nature. However, this old definition is now coming in the way of the law protecting the modern creative works.
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has given a system of classification of Artificial Intelligence into two models. They are 'machine learning AI' and 'deep learning AI.' The basic AI, or the machine learning AI type of AI, operates within a set of condition and rules. However, the latter 'deep learning AI' mainly uses a complex neural network to analyze and more complex data sets and the different forms of these data sets and unstructured data. Here, these technological jargons are important to understand the applicability of the copyright. Copyright directly depends on this classification and the model of the AI that will be used to produce the creative works.
THE PROSPECTIVE CHALLENGES:
The transition of the creative industry with the inclusion of artificial intelligence technology has raised many significant issues at the intersection of technology and intellectual property law. One of the fundamental issues that have arisen along with it includes authorship.
It is a complicated legal dilemma of attributing authorship of AI-generated content. Copyright laws were created keeping in mind the human creativity factor. However, as AI can now generate complex content, it is necessary to understand this feature.
It becomes more complicated when the AI generated works are created without the intervention of any human. If legislation recognises AI, it could be included under the authorship category. Human creativity could be thus held synonymous with that of the software, which might reduce a human's manner towards creativity. One of the primary reasons mentioned is, such attributes of making the AI as an author does not align up with the text or any of the binary generating oppositions. Stephen Hawking in several interviews had warned regarding the severe advancements of artificial intelligence as it is going to be harmful to humanity.
Another significant problem includes how the liability or accountability of such content is generated. There have been times when AI-generated works have resulted in controversial and inappropriate content generation. This has raised both civil and criminal aspects of liabilities. However, the AI systems do not hold a legal person, which could be made liable for such damage or inappropriate output. The determination of AI as an author could further complicate the argument.
Besides, the issue of moral rights mentioned under the Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 also becomes complicated since moral rights are associated with human thoughts and feelings. Amar Nath Seghal v Union of India is the case where the issue of moral rights under copyright had been briefly discussed.
There is yet another problem to tackle here, and that is the problem of originality or creativity. Many are not of the opinion that the art pieces or works of developed by the AI machinery are original in nature. This is because the same set of inputs in two almost same capacities are capable of creating art. In the case that an artist is made to create a piece of art, again and again, it is not logically sound for the artwork to be copyrighted. It is argued by some, to categorize the artworks created with the help of AI as part of the public domain. But this measure is likely to make corporations refrain from investing in the machinery in the first place. If they cannot monetize their innovations further, they will not invest.
REDEFINING AUTHORSHIP ACROSS BORDERS:
The current status of the protection afforded to AI-generated Content varies considerably between the jurisdictions in the World. There are few countries which are adopting progressive approaches, and there are few adopting the traditional approaches in rendering the AI-generated Content.
India's Progressive Position
India is one of those countries adopting a progressive approach. Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act provides for no limiting of authorship to human creators. This flexibility was evident when in one of the paintings created using an AI painting application "RAGHAV," known as the co-author for "Suryast" in 2021. The approach taken up in India shows that their legislation is ready to adapt to the changing technological realities in the field of creative expression.
The United Kingdom's Innovative Framework
UK is another country that has established one of the most comprehensive frameworks in relation to the AI-generated works. The UK takes the assistance of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 for the extension of the protection. Section 178 of the 1988 Act deals exclusively with the computer-generated works. Section 9(3) of the same Chains Act provides the right to the individual who makes the "necessary arrangements" for the creation of work. This approach seems to reconcile the technological innovation with the practical aspects of ownership.
Diverse Approaches in East Asia and Europe
Germany acts as an example of a Western jurisdiction that still applies the requirement of human creativity or originality in granting copyright protection. But according to a few reports, these countries on the verge of a transitional phase, which might result in a turn around. Germany has accepted that they are considering the issue of extending copyright protection to various AI-generated works, taking into consideration the kind of support provided to the AI by a human operator. It is important to note that, the European countries are the least-progressive in rendering their AI-generation content.
China has still a very rigid approach to the extension of copyright protection. Human creativity and originality are the most important criteria for any work to get a copyright. Even if in few cases the countries are on the verge of a transition period to fluctuate to a more flexible attitude towards the same. Shenzhen Tencent v Shanghai Yingzun may play an important role in changing the viewpoint the countries pass on the necessity of authorship and various other factors to render AI-generated content.
Japanese conservative requirements are slightly relaxing, and they might be aligning with Art 2(1) of the Berne Convention and norms stated under the TRIPS Agreement that contains needs a wider scope of protection for their modern works. But China's Shenzhen Tencent v Shanghai Yingzun seemed like a game-changer in the field of AI-generated content. According to this ruling, extending protection to the works, assisted by an AI and authorship might or might not be given to an AI.
CONCLUSION:
Legal frameworks should maintain the equilibrium by exploring the complex relationships between man and machine in the ever-proliferating AI-aided creative age. Without reasonable legal considerations, AI can very well assimilate human creativity and rights, and thus gain the monopoly over artificially generated ideas and the means of production. We can't afford an extensive relinquishing of creative power while granting full protection. AI-generated creations require enhanced precautions despite the mounting dependence upon its capabilities. There will indeed be both human and artificial creativity and the necessary regulations.
REFERENCES:
https://journals.law.harvard.edu/ilj/2025/02/why-the-obsession-with-human-creativity-a-comparative-analysis-on-copyright-registration-of-ai-generated-works/ https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/colloquium_papers_e/2018/2018_complete_file_e.pdf
https://dsnlu.ac.in/storage/2023/09/DSNLU-J.-SCI.-TECH.-L.-2023.pdf
Amar Nath Seghal v Union of India, [2005] 30 PTC 253 (Del)
UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 178
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
