Context: The Copyright Office of India rejected an application seeking to recognise the AI system DABUS as the author of an AI-generated artwork, while accepting that the work itself could satisfy the originality requirement.
About AI Creativity and Copyright:
What it is?
- AI creativity refers to the use of artificial intelligence systems to generate creative outputs such as images, music, literature, videos and designs.
- Under the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. For a computer-generated work, Section 2(d)(vi) identifies the author as the “person who causes the work to be created.”
Arguments For and Against AI Authorship:
| Arguments for AI Authorship | Arguments against AI Authorship |
| Autonomous Creativity: Advanced AI can generate outputs with limited direct human control over the final expression. | No Legal Personality: AI is neither a natural nor a recognised juristic person capable of possessing legal rights and duties. |
| Technological Reality: Recognising AI’s creative role may better reflect how increasingly autonomous generative systems operate. | Human-Centric Copyright: Copyright law traditionally links authorship with human skill, judgement and creative responsibility. |
| Encourages Innovation: Protection of AI-generated works could incentivise investment in creative AI technologies. | Ownership Problem: AI cannot independently own, assign, license or enforce copyright through contracts or courts. |
| Clear Attribution: Recognition could distinguish genuinely AI-generated works from human-created or AI-assisted works. | AI as a Tool: Like a camera, editing software or printing technology, AI may facilitate creation without becoming the legal author. |
| Law Can Evolve: Parliament can create a separate legal framework for autonomous AI-generated works as technology develops. | Accountability Gap: Treating AI as an author creates uncertainty over infringement, liability and responsibility for unlawful outputs. |
Significance:
- The ruling distinguishes originality from authorship. An AI-generated work may be original, but AI itself cannot currently be its statutory author; the legally responsible human may qualify as the person who “causes” the work to be created.
- It provides an important precedent for generative AI, intellectual property and creative industries, while leaving any extension of legal personhood or authorship to AI for Parliament to decide.
Relevance in UPSC Examination:
- GS Paper III: Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property Rights, IT and emerging technologies, innovation and digital economy.
- GS Paper IV: Ethical questions of creativity, accountability, ownership, responsibility and human agency in AI systems.
- Essay: AI and human creativity; technology and law; innovation versus accountability; future of human-machine relationships.
