AI-Generated Art Copyright India.
1. Legal Framework in India: AI-Generated Art & Copyright
Copyright Act, 1957 — Key Provisions
Computer-Generated Works:
Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act defines “author” for computer-generated works. A computer-generated work is one “generated by a computer in circumstances such that there is no human author.”
In such cases, the author is deemed to be the person who causes the work to be created.
This provision was initially intended for early computer-generated works, not advanced AI, but it forms the basis for analyzing AI art.
Originality Requirement:
Copyright protection requires originality and creative skill or judgment.
Courts have consistently held that human intellectual effort is necessary to qualify as original work.
Authorship Limitation:
Indian law currently recognizes only natural persons (humans) or juridical entities (companies) as authors.
AI itself is not recognized as an author.
2. Human Involvement & Authorship in AI-Generated Works
Purely AI-generated works without human creative input may not qualify for copyright, as there is no human author.
If a human guides or modifies the AI output, that person may qualify as the author.
The Copyright Office in India has rejected applications listing AI as the author for similar reasons.
3. Illustrative Cases
(i) RAGHAV AI / Suryast Artwork Registration (Delhi Copyright Office)
Facts: An artist used an AI tool called RAGHAV to generate the artwork “Suryast” and applied for copyright listing the AI as co-author.
Outcome: The Copyright Office initially rejected the application, stating that AI cannot be recognized as an author under current law.
Legal Significance: Confirms that human authorship is essential for copyright in India.
(ii) Navigators Logistics Ltd. v. Kashif Qureshi
Facts: The court examined a computer-generated list submitted for copyright protection, with no identifiable human author.
Outcome: Copyright was not granted, as there was no human creative input.
Principle: Courts require human intervention for originality.
(iii) R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978)
Facts: Dispute over copyright of a film and screenplay.
Ruling: Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not ideas themselves, and originality arises from human skill, labor, and creativity.
Relevance to AI: Purely AI-generated content may fail this originality test without substantial human contribution.
(iv) IPRS / ISRA Cases on Public Performance (AI-related reasoning)
Although not directly AI art cases, Indian courts have held that even new technological forms of content (like recordings) require rights clearance.
Example: ISRA won injunctions to prevent unauthorized use of AI-generated images of artists for commercial purposes.
Principle: Even if copyright is unsettled, personal rights and control over likeness are enforceable.
(v) Delhi High Court – AI-Generated Celebrity Images
Facts: AI-generated images of celebrities (e.g., Abhishek Bachchan) were used online without consent.
Outcome: Court issued an injunction preventing further unauthorized use.
Significance: Shows that even AI-generated works can violate rights of publicity or personality, regardless of copyright status.
(vi) Computer-Generated Music / Software Cases
Past Indian cases on computer-generated music or software show that courts consistently require human authorship for copyright.
AI-generated music following similar principles would likely need human creative input to be protected.
4. Key Legal Principles in India for AI-Generated Art
Authorship Requirement:
Copyright applies only to works with human authorship. AI itself cannot be an author.
Originality Requirement:
Work must demonstrate skill, labor, and judgment. Pure automation does not satisfy this.
AI-Assisted Works:
If a human directs or substantially modifies AI output, the human may qualify as the author.
Personality / Publicity Rights:
Unauthorized use of AI-generated images of real people can violate rights of publicity, even if copyright is uncertain.
Derivative Works & Infringement:
AI-generated art that copies existing copyrighted works can still infringe copyright law.
5. Practical Implications
Artists & Users: Must ensure substantial human contribution to claim copyright.
AI Tool Developers: Cannot claim copyright as authors for output.
Third Parties Using AI Art: Must check whether it violates personality rights or reproduces copyrighted material.
Regulatory Gap: India currently lacks explicit legislation addressing AI-generated art, so courts apply existing computer-generated work provisions.
6. Summary Table of Key Principles / Cases
| Case / Instance | Facts | Outcome / Principle |
|---|---|---|
| RAGHAV AI – Suryast | AI-generated artwork registration | Rejected for lack of human author |
| Navigators Logistics Ltd. | Computer-generated list | No copyright without human intervention |
| R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films | Film screenplay originality | Originality requires human skill and creativity |
| Delhi HC – Celebrity AI Images | Unauthorized AI-generated celebrity images | Injunction granted; protects personality/publicity rights |
| ISRA / AI recordings | AI-generated music/images of performers | CMOs / performers can enforce rights even with AI content |
7. Key Takeaways
AI cannot be an author under current Indian copyright law.
Human creative contribution is essential for copyright protection.
Personality/publicity rights can be enforced even when copyright is uncertain.
Derivative or copied AI works may infringe existing copyrights.
India may revise laws in future to explicitly cover AI-generated content, but currently courts rely on existing computer-generated work provisions.
RELATED Blog
comments