Search

Region
Jurisdiction
Firm
Author
Date
to
Keywords
Search

Navigation of Copyright in the Era of Artificial Intelligence

Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys India


Introduction

The recent years bear witness to numerous inventions as well as innovations. However, this has also led to the transformation of how humans and their creativity is put forth i.e., the dawn of artificial intelligence in the manner by which content is produced. This puts into perspective of how humans are no longer the sole genesis of artistry or ingenuity.

Artificial Intelligence or AI is essentially a theory in computer science that deals with the interpretation of human intelligence. The application of AI had led to a various human borne activities being perform by data driven programmes. Although it comes with the positives of ease of performance, the impact of it on copyright regulations must be analysed as well. As such, this blog delves into the consequences of AI and its role in the application of copyright laws.

Analysis

The evolution of AI had undoubtedly also contributed to the generation of creativity and ideas. However, this has also undoubtedly led to various questions that required answers. For instance, whether the AI Generated works and its copyright belonged to the user who prompted the creativity? Or whether it belonged to the AI System? Or whether it belonged to the individual upkeeping the AI System?

While these do require conclusive understanding, the current scenario of Indian copyright laws paint a rather vague picture. Under the Indian laws, copyright protection is given to works that are produced by humans or are of ‘human authorship.’ What this essentially does not put into purview is the content that is generated by AI, given that it becomes ambiguous to determine the actual source of the work. Many jurisdictions also consider copyright to be given only to humans. For instance, the Copyright Directives of the European Union provides that copyright can be considered for all works produced by humans but does not include “non-human” works.

For copyright protection to be granted under the Indian framework, it is pertinent to note that some criteria must be fulfilled. Firstly, the content so created must be that of ‘human authorship.’ Secondly, the content must have enough human input to be considered under the ambit of having been solely the produce of continuous diligence by a human/s. And lastly, the work so produced must be original in its true sense. As clearly stated in Section 13 of the Indian Copyright Act, copyright protection can be granted if the works in contention are “original literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works.”

However, these criteria also easily become grounds for refusal of copyright protection as it can be concluded that the AI generated content did not have satisfactory human inputs at all. Moreover, the current Copyright Act of 1957 does not recognise AI to be an author which then further impedes the process of even recognising its copyright protection scenario.

Additionally, the context of recognising the content generated by AI to be original in its true sense proves to be in murky waters, given that it can easily be claimed that such works are founded on pre-existing texts, works or any sources available through the pages of the web.

 

Current Standing of the Indian Framework

In 1994, the Indian Government took the initiative of amending the Copyright Act of 1954 to include the perspective of “literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer generated” but the authorship lays with the person who is the cause of such generation i.e., “the person who causes the work to be created.” However, the interpretation of ‘persons’ is largely left to the interests of the courts and the status of AI is yet to be determined.

 

Additionally, it can be largely derived that ‘persons’ tend to be centric towards humans. This can be understood by the notion that when it comes to submitting an application for registration of copyright, an individual’s details are asked for.

Conversely, in an optimistic instance, copyright was granted to an AI generated content. “RAGHAV,” an AI Painting App, generated the painting ‘Suryast.’ An application for copyright registration was filed under the handle of RAGHAV. However, this was rejected by the copyright office. Another application was filed but this time attributing RAGHAV to be a co-author. The copyright office accepted the application and ‘Suryast’ was granted copyright registration. Consequently, it is of no surprise when this very registration is challenged by the copyright office demanding for it to be withdrawn, most likely on the grounds that the granting of such a registration may be on vague terms. The granting of copyright is to persons i.e., humans or natural persons. As such, the case presents to be a scenario that contradicts such an establishment as RAGHAV is not a human or a natural person. Moreover, what of the defences that could be taken if ‘Suryast’ infringes on the works of another person/s?

Presently, though, the copyright status still apparently remains registered. But certainly, it may be used as a precedent for subsequent similar applications, the rejection of which may be termed to have been on ‘wrongful grounds.’ This may paint numerous problems as the granting of copyright registration may also paint a troublesome picture when it comes to copyright infringement or in cases where the AI must either sue or be sued. For instance, given that AI draws upon multiple existing sources and data, the infringement of each of these sources raise the questions of the extent of fair use in derivative works. Moreover, the originality of AI generated work comes under scrutiny too as its content can hardly be classified as one that is generated from pure creative intent, given that it clearly operates on designed data models and patterns to produce such works.

Nonetheless, the status of AI still remains uncertain i.e., whether it can be considered as an author in itself or not. The Indian framework largely considers authorship to be natural persons yet considers AI under the ambit of co-authorship. It presents a paradox that is puzzling yet one that seems to not be unravelling anytime soon.

In 2021, the Parliamentary Standing Committee in its 161st Report titled “Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India” brought light upon expanding the purview of authorship when it comes to AI generated content. This again marks a hopeful step towards the integration of AI in the copyright laws of India but the inherent challenges in adopting such a measure proves to be a step back as well.

 

Conclusion

The world is in a continuous motion of innovation and development. Alongside it, the advancement of AI is also progressing at an exponential speed. Keeping in regards the current scenario as well as the limitations posed by the existing interpretations of the status of AI, it becomes extremely pertinent to address this issue as soon as possible.

The sheer volume of data being processed by AI systems make it impossible for the current traditional framework to keep track of the copyright infringements that may possibly take place. Furthermore, this reason combined with the lack of a proper and cohesive framework to tackle the issues of AI generated copyright infringement proves to be another challenge.

Currently, the context of determining the level of contribution between AI and humans are also not defined clearly. It subsequently makes it difficult to comprehend the authorship of the content. Supplementarily, the acceptance of co-authorship when the idea of authorship in itself has not been established yet proves to be a haywire situation.

As such, it becomes a crucial time for the Indian framework to adapt to all of these evolving changes effectively, especially at a time when AI generated models or content are increasingly becoming an intrinsic part of our every day lives.

References

  •  “Harshal Chhabra, Kanishk Gaurav P. (2024) Balancing Indian Copyright Law with AI-Generated Content: The ‘Significant Human Input’ Approach. Available at: https://www.ijlt.in/post/balancing-indian-copyright-law-with-ai-generated-content- the-significant-human-input-approach (Accessed: 17th October 2024)
  • “Vishnu S. (2024) Navigating the Grey Area: Copyright Implications of AI Generated Content. Available at: https://nopr.niscpr.res.in/bitstream/123456789/63695/1/JIPR- 29%282%29%20103-108.pdf (Accessed: 17th October 2024)
  • “Dr. Sugandha Passi, K. (2023) Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content: Copyright, Ownership, and Fair Use in the Age of Creative Machines. Available at:

https://www.ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2311271.pdf (Accessed: 17th October 2024)

_Copyright_Dilemma (Accessed: 17th October 2024)

  • The Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957) Available at:

https://copyright.gov.in/documents/copyrightrules1957.pdf (Accessed: 17th October 2024

 

 

Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys



About the Firm

Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys

AddressD-45, UPSIDC, Site IV, Kasna Road, Greater Noida - 201308, National Capital Region, India
Tel91-120-313 2513, 91-120-350 5740
Fax91-120-4516201
Contact PersonTarun Khurana
Emailinfo@khuranaandkhurana.com
Linkwww.khuranaandkhurana.com


Related Articles