Published On: April 11th 2026
Authored By: Sonam Tiwari
Amity University Raipur Chhattisgarh
Abstract
Artificial intelligence has fundamentally altered the landscape of creative production. AI systems can now write literary works, compose music, generate visual art, and produce scientific innovations that were once considered exclusively within the domain of human ingenuity. This shift compels a serious reconsideration of foundational questions in intellectual property law: who is the author of an AI-generated work, and who holds the rights to it? The existing legal framework in India, anchored in the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Patents Act, 1970, recognises only natural persons as authors and inventors, leaving AI-generated works in a legal vacuum. This paper examines how different jurisdictions approach the ownership of AI-generated works, identifies the structural inadequacies of current intellectual property frameworks, and recommends reforms aimed at achieving a fair balance between incentivising innovation and protecting human creative contribution.
I. Introduction
Artificial intelligence has evolved well beyond the execution of automated, repetitive tasks. Contemporary AI systems can adapt to new environments, process vast datasets, and produce outputs that are functionally indistinguishable from human-created works. A large language model can author a legally coherent contract clause; a generative image model can produce artwork exhibited in galleries worldwide. In some instances, AI works in collaboration with human creators; in others, it operates with minimal human direction.
This transformation challenges the foundational assumptions of intellectual property law, a body of law premised on human authorship, originality, and inventive step. As AI tools become embedded in creative and scientific workflows, the legal system must confront several pressing questions: Who owns what an AI creates? Can an AI system qualify as an author or inventor? Must ownership always be traced back to a human being? These are not merely theoretical concerns. They carry direct economic implications for technology investment, commercialisation, and creative industry regulation.
The difficulty is compounded by the fact that India’s core intellectual property statutes, the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Patents Act, 1970, were enacted decades before generative AI was conceivable. They provide no guidance on works created autonomously by AI systems, leaving creators, developers, and courts without a clear legal framework.
II. AI and Its Transformative Potential
Artificial intelligence, broadly understood, refers to computational systems capable of performing tasks that ordinarily require human-level cognition, including learning, reasoning, and decision-making. Recent advances in generative AI have produced models capable of independently creating text, images, music, software code, and scientific solutions.
The boundaries between human and machine authorship are increasingly difficult to draw. DeepMind’s AlphaFold, for instance, has transformed structural biology by predicting protein structures with remarkable accuracy, a task that previously required years of laboratory research.[1] Similarly, AI-generated artworks have been exhibited and sold at major auction houses, raising immediate questions about authorship and commercial ownership. As AI capabilities expand, legislators are being compelled to re-examine what constitutes an “original” creative work and whether the concept of “inventive step” can be attributed to a non-human system.
III. Global Legal Perspectives on AI-Generated Works
Different jurisdictions have adopted varying approaches to AI-generated works, reflecting distinct legal traditions and policy priorities.
United Kingdom: Under Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, computer-generated works are attributed to “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”[2] This deeming provision ensures that a human nexus is always maintained for copyright purposes. However, UK patent law takes a stricter position: the Patents Act, 1977 requires that an inventor must be a natural person, a principle affirmed in Thaler v. Comptroller General of Patents,[3] where the Court of Appeal held that an AI system cannot be named as an inventor.
China: Chinese courts have issued inconsistent rulings on AI-generated works. In Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co. Ltd. v. Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co. Ltd.,[4] the Shenzhen Nanshan District People’s Court recognised copyright in an AI-generated financial report on the basis of substantial human involvement in its creation. This ruling was not accompanied by clear legislative guidance, however, and subsequent decisions have not produced a uniform standard. China’s intellectual property framework remains unsettled with respect to purely autonomous AI output.
United States: The U.S. Copyright Office has maintained a consistent position that copyright protection extends only to works created by human authors. In its 2025 guidance report on AI and copyrightability, the Office reaffirmed that works generated entirely by AI without meaningful human creative control are ineligible for protection.[5] This position was further confirmed in Thaler v. Perlmutter,[6] where the court upheld the refusal to register a work attributed solely to an AI system, emphasising that the human authorship requirement is a constitutional and statutory prerequisite.
IV. The Ambiguity of India’s IPR Framework
India’s intellectual property statutes do not address AI-generated works. Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines “author” with reference to human categories (author, composer, artist, photographer, producer), with no provision for AI systems. Similarly, the Patents Act, 1970 requires that an applicant for a patent be a “person,” a term that Indian jurisprudence has not extended to non-human entities.
The controversy surrounding the AI system RAGHAV illustrates this ambiguity in practice. The Indian Copyright Office initially co-registered an artwork listing RAGHAV as a co-author alongside a human contributor. The registration was subsequently modified, removing RAGHAV as a named author.[7] This episode exposed not only a gap in the statutory framework but also an absence of consistent administrative policy. The absence of clear rules leaves creators and technology developers in a state of legal uncertainty, with no reliable way to determine whether AI-assisted works can attract protection and, if so, on what terms.
V. Legal Challenges and Analytical Issues
Three structural challenges complicate the development of an effective legal framework for AI-generated works.
1. Authorship and Attribution: The threshold question is identifying who, if anyone, is the author of a work created autonomously by an AI system. Traditional legal frameworks attribute authorship to the individual who exercises intellectual effort and creative judgment. Where an AI generates a work based on a training dataset and a brief user prompt, it is analytically difficult to locate the required degree of human creative contribution in any single actor.
2. The Originality Threshold: Copyright law requires that a protected work reflect the author’s own intellectual creation. Where a human plays a substantive role in directing or refining an AI’s output, that threshold may be satisfied. Where the human contribution is minimal or purely operational, the work is unlikely to qualify. Determining where this line falls in practice requires context-specific analysis that existing statutory language does not support.
3. Economic Dimension: Denying protection to AI-generated works may discourage investment in AI-driven industries, while granting broad rights could marginalise human creators and concentrate IP ownership in large technology firms. Achieving a balanced approach is therefore not only a doctrinal challenge but a matter of significant economic policy.
VI. Recommendations for India
India should undertake a targeted legislative review of its intellectual property statutes to address the specific challenges posed by AI-generated works. Amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957 could introduce a new category of “computer-generated works” modelled on the UK approach, vesting rights in the person who makes the necessary arrangements for the work’s creation. A similar provision in the Patents Act, 1970 could clarify that AI-assisted inventions may be patentable, provided a human inventor is identified as responsible for the inventive concept.
In addition, India should consider establishing a dedicated regulatory body or expert committee within the Intellectual Property India office to develop guidelines for AI-related IP disputes. Such a body could provide consistency in administrative decision-making and reduce the kind of uncertainty demonstrated in the RAGHAV episode.
Finally, India should engage actively in international standard-setting through WIPO’s ongoing work on AI and intellectual property. Harmonised international norms would reduce the risk of forum-shopping and create a more predictable environment for cross-border AI commercialisation. India’s participation in shaping these norms would ensure that its domestic interests are adequately represented.
VII. Conclusion
The emergence of generative AI has exposed deep structural gaps in intellectual property law, both in India and globally. The divergence in national approaches, ranging from the UK’s functional human-arranger model to the US’s strict human authorship requirement, reflects the absence of any settled international consensus. India’s current statutory framework, silent on the question of AI-generated works, is ill-equipped to support the country’s growing AI sector or to protect the interests of human creators who work alongside AI tools.
What is needed is a forward-looking legal framework that acknowledges AI’s role as a creative tool without displacing human authorship as the normative centre of intellectual property law. Legislative reform, supported by administrative guidelines and international engagement, offers the clearest path toward a coherent and equitable system. India has both the legal infrastructure and the institutional capacity to take this step. Timely action will determine whether India’s IP framework becomes an asset or a constraint in the age of generative AI.
References
[1] John Jumper et al., Highly Accurate Protein Structure Prediction with AlphaFold, 596 Nature 583 (2021).
[2] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 (UK), s 9(3).
[3] Thaler v. Comptroller General of Patents [2021] EWCA Civ 1374.
[4] Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co. Ltd. v. Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co. Ltd., Shenzhen Nanshan District People’s Court (2019).
[5] U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability (2025).
[6] Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 22-1564 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023).
[7] Indian Copyright Office, RAGHAV AI Artwork Registration (2020-2021).
