AI And Authorship - Life After Copyright In The Time Of Machine-Made Art

Introduction

What began as a small test system has turned into a standard tool and artificial intelligence now props up almost every big industry. Programs like ChatGPT, NVIDIA ACE, Harvey and a growing list of rivals have changed what people mean by “creativity,” because the same programs now handle research, help shoot films plus compose songs - work that once came only from human minds. On the one hand, while these technologies get a chance to flourish, they still create concern with the correctness of originality in cases where the work has been done solely by the machine.

This contradictory and paradoxical situation goes against the core of the current copyright prototype which was all about preserving human personalities and creativity. With the Indian economy witnessing a transformational phase with technology fettering in every industry, securing the right place for AI in copyright protection where both laws and innovations go hand in hand is critical.

 AI and Authorship - Life after Copyright in the Time of Machine-Made Art

What began as a small test system has turned into a standard tool and artificial intelligence now props up almost every big industry. Programs like ChatGPT, NVIDIA ACE, Harvey and a growing list of rivals have changed what people mean by “creativity,” because the same programs now handle research, help shoot films plus compose songs - work that once came only from human minds. On the one hand, while these technologies get a chance to flourish, they still create concern with the correctness of originality in cases where the work has been done solely by the machine.

This contradictory and paradoxical situation goes against the core of the current copyright prototype which was all about preserving human personalities and creativity. With the Indian economy witnessing a transformational phase with technology fettering in every industry, securing the right place for AI in copyright protection where both laws and innovations go hand in hand is critical.

Authorship under Indian Copyright Law:

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, succinctly states that only humans are the "author" in a literary work. Section 2(d) provides that the person who brings out an original creation is to be identified as the 'author'. Besides, the law takes it for granted that nearly all people, including the authors of a novel, a painting, an antique piece of furniture, or a piece of music, have their creativity spread in their work.

In the Tech Plus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Jyoti Janda (2014), the Delhi High Court lays something of a litmus test on creativity, interpreting it as skill, effort, and discernment – qualities that are inherently human. In the case of Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008), the Supreme Court established the principle of "originality with a modicum of creativity" (1 SCC 1).

In a contemporary scenario, AI is producing the works that satisfy legal tests for original works, yet there can be no creativity or purpose in those works. As a result, the current legislation treats AI-produced works in a legal gray area: they have indicative creativity but do not have any legal or recognized authorship.

The Global Picture: Comparative Look at How Other Countries are Regulating It

The enigma of the jurisdictional approach of different nations to AI-powered content has been balanced by an identification of unique legal structures as a way forward. Overall, the United Kingdom offers a more practical approach than other countries. According to Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act, 1988, in relation to works created by computers, the "author" is the person who determines the essential elements of the work at the initial stage. The one who is creatively involved in the definition and execution of the AI gains copyright.

The Indian Context: Legal Farming, Functional Peril

The scope of laws relating to intellectual property (IP) in India has not advanced in time. Presently, the Copyright Office or the judiciary does not have a sure directive for the kind of intellectual content that is created by AI. The National IPR Policy (2016), which has an innovation motivation agenda, does not make a distinction between human and AI-generated creativity, thus leaving recurrent issues without a clear solution.

This lacuna leaves freedom for hazards. Start-ups and firms frequently intrigued by developing AI tools in creative spheres, such as advertising, design, or gaming, are usually at a loss on the subject of the output of these projects, as to who is the real owner. Ambiguous authorship hinders the licensing process and revenue generation from licensing.

Likewise, with the creation of worldwide intellectual property (IP) systems, India might find itself incompatible with trading partners that will soon develop mechanisms recognizing AI-generated works, making it a global issue in respect to competitiveness rather than simply being a legal matter.

The Way Forward - A Plain Plan for Copyright that Keeps the Rule of Law and Makes Room for AI

Copyright law needs an update that faces the new facts brought by AI. No one tries to turn the machine itself into a legal person - the point is to give clear rights and duties to the people and groups who build plus run the AI.

A solid plan could hold those parts

1. Follow the UK rule - the human who trains or codes the AI stays liable.
2. Build a fresh right that covers works born from AI, a right that mixes old copyright ideas with new needs.
3. Create a small board that explains Copyright Office rules for AI-aided works until Parliament writes new law.

Those moves would show citizens and investors what the rules are and would pull more money into science but also the arts. The plan keeps humans at the center - the old rule that only humans hold copyright stays untouched.

Conclusion

AI alters the path of invention itself. As machines turn out poems, songs and pictures, copyright must drop its old “only humans create” view and adopt a model that sees both keyboard as well as code. The aim is not to erase painters or poets - they remain. The aim is to admit a fresh form of teamwork where human thought and machine output share the same canvas. If India wants to stay in the race, it must act on its own plan and not sit still until other nations write the rules.

References

1. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1.
2. Tech Plus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Jyoti Janda, CS(OS) 1732/2012, Delhi High Court, Judgment dated 29 September 2014.
3. The Copyright Act, 1957 (India) – Section 2(d).
4. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 (United Kingdom) – Section 9(3).
5. National IPR Policy, 2016, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. Available at: https://dpiit.gov.in/sites/default/files/National-IPR-Policy2016.pdf 
6. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), “WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property (IP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI)”. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/artificial_intelligence/ 
7. UK Government Consultation, “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Pro-innovation regulation for AI,” Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, GOV.UK (2023). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence 
8. Bond, Toby and Blair, Sarah, “Authorship without an Author? Section 9(3) CDPA and Computer-Generated Works,” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Vol. 14, No. 6, 2019, pp. 423–430.
9. Sen, Aparajita, “Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Authorship: The Indian Legal Framework in Context,” NUJS Law Review, Vol. 13, Issue 2 (2020).
10. Singh, R., “AI-Generated Works and Copyright in India: Rethinking the Notion of Authorship,” Indian Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 17 (2021).
11. Mishra, P., “Whose Work Is It Anyway? The Authorship Question in AI-Generated Creativity,” SpicyIP Blog, 2022. Available at: https://spicyip.com 
12. World Economic Forum (WEF), “Generative AI and Copyright: Shaping the Future of Creative Rights,” WEF White Paper, 2023. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/reports/generative-ai-and-copyright/ 
13. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence,” OECD Policy Paper, 2022. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/sti/intellectual-property-and-ai.pdf 

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.