The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence technologies has created unprecedented legal challenges, particularly in the realm of intellectual property rights. As AI systems increasingly produce content that would traditionally be protected by copyright if created by humans, courts around the world are grappling with fundamental questions about authorship, ownership, and protectability. India’s Delhi High Court has recently found itself at the center of this evolving legal landscape, facing critical questions about whether AI-generated content deserves copyright protection under existing frameworks.
The Current Legal Framework in India
India’s Copyright Act of 1957, while comprehensive in protecting traditional creative works, was drafted long before the emergence of sophisticated AI systems. The Act defines an “author” as a natural person who creates original literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works. This human-centric definition poses a significant challenge when considering works produced entirely by AI without direct human input.
Under current Indian copyright law, protection requires:
- Originality
- Expression in a tangible medium
- Creation by an author (traditionally understood as a human)
The Delhi High Court, when confronted with these questions, must interpret whether existing statutes can accommodate AI-generated works or if legislative changes are necessary.
The Originality Threshold Question
A central issue before the Delhi High Court is how to apply the “originality” requirement to AI-generated content. Indian copyright law, following the landmark Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak case, requires a minimal degree of creativity and judgment for copyright protection. The Court has signalled that establishing a clear standard for evaluating originality in AI-generated works is essential for future jurisprudence.
The “Human Input” Spectrum
The Delhi High Court has begun developing a nuanced approach that recognizes different degrees of human involvement in AI-created works:
- AI as a tool: When AI is used merely as a sophisticated tool directed by human creativity and judgment, the human user remains the author, similar to how a photographer uses a camera.
- Human-AI collaboration: When humans provide substantive creative input, select between AI-generated options, or substantially modify AI outputs, a case for human authorship exists.
- Autonomous AI creation: When AI independently creates content with minimal or no human direction, the absence of human authorship presents a challenge for copyright protection.
A recent case pending before the Delhi High Court involves a writer who used an AI writing assistant to co-create a novel. The court is considering whether the writer’s prompts, selections, and edits constitute sufficient creative input to qualify for copyright protection.
Ownership Disputes: Developers vs. Users vs. Data Providers
Another complex issue before the Delhi High Court involves determining the rightful owner of AI-generated content when multiple parties contribute to its creation:
- AI developers who create and train the system
- End users who provide prompts or parameters
- Data providers whose works formed the training datasets
The Court has indicated that resolving these competing claims requires carefully balancing the contributions and interests of each party. In preliminary discussions, judges have acknowledged that different AI systems and use cases might warrant different ownership determinations, suggesting a case-by-case approach rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.
Economic Rights vs. Moral Rights
The Delhi High Court has also begun exploring the distinction between economic rights (reproduction, distribution, etc.) and moral rights (attribution, integrity) in the context of AI-generated works.
Even if economic rights could potentially be assigned to developers or users, moral rights present a particular challenge since they are traditionally tied to the personal connection between a human creator and their work. The Court has questioned whether moral rights can meaningfully exist for works without a human author, potentially suggesting a bifurcated approach where certain rights might apply while others do not.
Alternative Protection Frameworks
Recognizing the limitations of traditional copyright for AI-generated works, the Delhi High Court has begun exploring alternative legal mechanisms that might provide appropriate protection:
- Creating a sui generis right for AI-generated content with limited duration
- Modifying existing related rights protections to include AI outputs
- Developing new licensing frameworks specifically for AI-generated works
- Focusing on contract law rather than copyright for governing AI content rights
These discussions reflect the Court’s willingness to consider innovative solutions that balance innovation incentives with the foundational principles of copyright law.
Policy Implications and Future Outlook
The Delhi High Court’s approach to AI copyright questions will have far-reaching implications for India’s growing technology sector and creative industries. Key policy considerations include:
- Encouraging AI innovation while protecting human creators
- Ensuring legal certainty for businesses developing and using AI tools
- Maintaining international harmonization while addressing India-specific concerns
- Adapting to rapidly evolving AI capabilities without requiring constant legal revisions
As the Court continues to develop its jurisprudence in this area, it has emphasized the need for interdisciplinary expertise involving technologists, legal scholars, and policy experts to develop balanced and forward-looking solutions.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court stands at a critical juncture in shaping how Indian law will address the complex intersection of AI and copyright. While definitive rulings remain forthcoming, the Court has demonstrated a thoughtful approach that acknowledges both the unprecedented nature of these questions and their significance for India’s digital future.
As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated and their outputs more difficult to distinguish from human-created works, the Court’s evolving framework will likely need to balance traditional copyright principles with pragmatic solutions that provide appropriate protections without stifling innovation. For creators, developers, and users of AI systems in India, following these legal developments closely will be essential for navigating this rapidly changing landscape.
– Aarushi Mahajan
(Principal Associate, Emerge Legal)
