“Explore the challenges of AI-generated content in India, highlighting the need for policy reforms and judicial clarity to protect creators and foster innovation.”
In late 2021, a particular case of an AI-generated artwork grasped people’s attention in India, revealing the gaps in the current copyright laws of the country. The Indian Copyright Office had first approved the work of art made by an AI named Raghav but later on, it cancelled the licence citing that there was no human author of the work as per the Copyright Act of 1957. This case, therefore, revealed a major problem: India’s legal system is not ready to solve the issues that arise from the use of artificial intelligence in law. In recent years, with the rise of ChatGPT, MidJourney and DALL-E, AI tools have become a major threat to creative industries worldwide and now everyone is talking about authorship, ownership and copyright of the content.
India’s copyright system is still saturated with outdated concepts that fail to consider such matters while the US and the EU are both in the process of altering their legal systems to incorporate AI-generated content.
Existing Problems in AI-Generated Content and Copyright Law in India
The challenges that come with using AI in creating content are increasing to a point where the Indian legal system is unable to address them, particularly in regards to copyright. India’s intellectual property protection is based on the Copyright Act of 1957, which was enacted before the digital revolution and has no provisions for dealing with AI. This has posed a number of challenges that affect both AI developers and creators and have not been addressed.
The absence of Indian copyright law from recognizing AI as an author is one of the biggest issues. ChatGPT and other AI tools-produced works are not entirely human-created, and thus, there are no clearcut ownership rights according to Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act. This ambiguity has resulted in a legal void that has resulted in legal debates and uncertainties as to who is to own the works created by AI, the developers or the users. For example, in the Raghav AI Artwork case (2021), the Copyright Office first permitted co-authorship by a human and an AI tool, but it had to U-turn because there were no laws on AI-generated content.
Another major issue is the unregulated use of copyrighted material in the training of AI models. Generative AI tools are built from large datasets, which are often scraped from publicly accessible sources that may include copyrighted material. However, Indian copyright law offers no protection or licensing mechanisms to authors whose works have been used without their permission. This problem can be illustrated by the present ANI v. OpenAI case where ANI accused OpenAI of using its exclusive news content to train its language model ChatGPT without its permission. These actions not only counter the intellectual property rights of the creators but also raise ethical concerns on the issue of fair compensation.
Additionally, India has no specific laws regarding fair dealing or transformative use related to the training of AI systems. Indian law is still unclear and restrictive whereas many countries including the United States have used ideas such as transformative use to deal with these issues. This restriction is a hurdle to innovation and cooperation as well as leaving developers and creators to steer through legal uncertainties. It is further complicated by the absence of clear guidelines on what is a fair use of the data in the context of AI training.
Thirdly, copyright owners in India have no right to opt out of the usage of their work in the training of AI. On the other hand, the EU’s AI Act (2025) has provisions on the transparency of using training data and allows creators to opt out. There are no similar laws in India, hence Indian creators have no protection against the misuse of their intellectual property.
These outstanding problems highlight the importance of urgent legal amendments and judicial interpretation to address the challenges of AI-generated content. India stands the risk of being left behind in the promotion of technological innovation and protection of intellectual property rights if no action is taken. The legislators and the stakeholders must discuss and debate how best the current frameworks can be adapted to the new realities as the generative AI tools are becoming more available and sophisticated.
How the World Tackles AI Copyright?
Human Authorship: A Universal Standard
Every copyright law in the world requires that there be a human author in order to apply. In Alter v. OpenAI (2024), the U.S. Copyright Office concluded that AI-generated text does not exhibit the 'creative spark' necessary for copyright protection unless substantial human editing is involved. Levola Hengelo BV v. Smilde Foods BV decision of the European Court of Justice in 2018 supports this argument, by stating that works must be the result of a personal intellectual creation in order to be eligible for copyright protection. Despite the opinions of these decisions regarding AI as a tool and not as a creator, they fail to address issues concerning the ownership that may arise from the collaboration between humans and AI.
Training Data Legality
To enable the large datasets that power AI models, they often rely on algorithms trained using datasets, which are frequently made up of copyrighted materials. This has led to legal issues around the world. For instance, the AI Act (2025) under consideration in the EU provides for the right of creators to opt out of the use of their creations in the training of datasets. On the other hand, in New York Times v. OpenAI, U.S. courts are currently debating whether the use of copyrighted material for training is a valid ‘fair use.’ India has never mentioned these problems; this is because there are no laws on the use of AI training data, therefore any given data can be scraped by startups while creators have no protection.
India’s Copyright Act: Outdated & Overburdened
Long before AI became a reality India’s Copyright Act was draughted. Under Indian Copyright Section 2(d)(vi) an author is defined as ‘the person who has created the work’. This definition fails to recognize AI systems as authors because it requires human involvement in the creation of the work and does not cover cases where the content is created by AI systems on its own. Furthermore, Section 52 lists out exemptions for fair dealing in certain contexts like education and research, however, it does not capture whether using copyrighted material for training AI models is covered under these exemptions. The gap in the legislation was revealed when the Copyright Office acknowledged that the current laws are not sufficient to deal with such claims and granted and then revoked protection for Raghav’s artwork in 2023.
ANI has filed a suit against OpenAI in the Delhi High Court in 2024, for using its news content without authorization to train ChatGPT. It is an important legal question in India whether it is permissible to scrape online content for the training of AI and who is liable for this – developers, users or the AI itself. In contrast, the EU’s AI Act,2025 has specific Text and Data Mining (TDM) exceptions that allow for the use of copyrighted material in AI systems under certain conditions. As of now, there are no similar regulations in India, hence the authors are exposed to the unauthorized use of their creations in the training of AI models which may lead to monetary loss and legal ramifications.
Who’s Getting Hurt? Risks in the AI-Copyright Crossfire
Creators: “My Work Trains My Replacement”
The absence of specific copyright protections for AI generated works can be a big problem for musicians, authors and artists. If creators do not get legal recognition for their contributions, they risk plagiarism and unauthorized use of their creations by AI systems. Currently, under Indian law, the original creator has limited choices if an AI system comes up with a piece of music or art that is quite similar to an existing one, without an appropriate credit or licence.
In addition, many creators are concerned that their work will be included in the training sets of generative AI tools without their consent. In the last few years, there have been instances in which musicians have found out that their songs had been used to train algorithms without their knowledge or permission. This not only violates their rights but also poses an ethical concern on compensation for creative work.
Startups: Innovating in Legal Darkness
The issues of ownership and liability are major challenges for AI developers and startups, among others. Only human actors are liable for infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act. This raises the question of whether unapproved use of copyrighted content during training can lead to liability for AI systems or their developers.
Startups have the challenge of complying with unclear rules on how to source training data ethically. Investors are put off by companies that operate in a legal grey area and could face infringement claims that would carry hefty financial liabilities. This uncertainty hampers innovation and discourages investment in India’s growing AI industry.
Bridging the Gap: Reforms India Urgently Needs
India’s Copyright Act needs to be revised now to clarify uncertainties regarding works created by artificial intelligence. First and foremost, amendments should clarify whether the ownership of a AI-generated work belongs to developers or users who prompt AIs. Furthermore, just as the EU is doing with its upcoming regulations on data usage for training purposes, India should implement licensing mechanisms to safeguard the ethical use of copyrighted content while still allowing creators to opt out of having their work included in training datasets.
What India needs is a well-rounded strategy that is good for developers and for creators. One proposal is Sui generis rights, a new class of protections tailored especially for AI-generated works. This would help protect these inventions while retaining enough flexibility to encourage creativity. Another wise move would be to establish centralised licensing mechanisms, which would mean that AI developers could quickly obtain permissions from copyright holders through a Self-Regulatory Organisation (SRO). This would ensure that creators get fair compensation, simplify the licensing process and effectively resolve disputes.
Practical Survival Guide for Stakeholders
As India grapples with the complexities of copyright law and AI-generated content, AI developers, creators and legislators must all champion pragmatic approaches to mitigate risks and seize opportunities.
This can only be achieved by the creators if they record their complete process of creation, which includes the drafts, notes and even the communication with the AI tools. This in turn helps in claiming copyright and detecting authorship. They can also get more control over how their works are used by providing licenses for certain uses, make sure that their rights are protected and earn from it through platforms like Ko-fi or Patreon. Attending workshops and industry events to update themselves on the latest developments in AI technology and copyright law is equally significant.
In order to ensure that AI companies comply with copyright rules, it is crucial for these companies to have their training datasets checked on a regular basis. It is a legal requirement for businesses to establish that all the training resources used are properly licensed or that they have been used within the context of the fair use doctrine. One of the ways to minimize on legal risks is to ensure that one comes up with well written user agreements that include among other things, ownership, usage and liability. It is quite evident that consulting with intellectual property attorneys will be useful in order to understand the basics of copyright law and perform risk analysis and contract preparation.
The use of AI and copyright law in India is largely determined by policy makers. To make sure that the policies serve the best interest of all the concerned stakeholders, it is important that policy makers engage stakeholders such as creators, business people and legal advisers in the policy making process. Important in this respect are campaigns for the public awareness of copyright issues in relation to AI generated content as they educate the creators on their rights and the ethical implications of the technology. Encouraging research projects on the relationship between AI and copyright law can also yield insightful information about best practices and creative solutions suited to the particular circumstances of India.
By implementing these tactics, India can successfully manage the difficulties presented by AI-generated content while encouraging creativity and defending the rights of creators.
Because of the speed at which artificial intelligence technologies are developing, India's copyright framework for AI-generated content is at a critical point that necessitates immediate reforms in order to protect creator rights and promote innovation in this emerging field.
There are opportunities and challenges in the current environment, but if proactive steps are not taken right away, like revising current laws to make authorship ownership liability definitions clearer, we run the risk of stifling innovation and impeding growth prospects for all industries that depend on these cutting-edge technologies.
India needs to take decisive action if it wants to safeguard its creative community and establish itself as a pioneer in international discussions about intellectual property rights in the face of the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence technologies.
References
- AI and the copyright dilemma: What India needs to do -Governance Now
- Copyright and Creativity in the Age of AI - Media Coverage - Stanford Law School
- The Act Texts | EU Artificial Intelligence Act
- India Code: Copyright Act, 1957
- Intellectual Property & AI-generated Works: is India Ready? - NLIU Law Review
- Developing AI within India's regulatory framework | Law.asia
- Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works: Exploring Originality and Ownership in a Digital Landscape | Asian Journal of International Law | Cambridge Core
- The Leaflet (2025). ANI v. OpenAI in the Delhi HC: Everything so far and all that is at stake
- Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 Copyrightability Report
- Bar & Bench (2024). Intersection of Intellectual Property Rights and AI-Generated Works – Part I
- Live Law (2023). Artificial Intelligence Lacks Personhood To Become The Author Of An Intellectual Property