AI & Copyright - Redefining Legal Boundaries In The Age Of Automation

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Technology, Cyber & Privacy

Published: 2026-08-23T17:44:05.34605+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:12:24.775+00:00

AI & COPYRIGHT: REDEFINING LEGAL BOUNDARIES IN

THE AGE OF AUTOMATION

Aman Sen, BBA LLB (Hons.), KIIT School of Law, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

ABSTRACT

"On the one hand, authors would go broke if their copyrights weren’t respected and, on the other, innovation would be impossible if vast amounts of copyrighted work were not allowed to be used to train new AI systems1." – Shashi Tharoor. This quote captures the delicate balance between safeguarding intellectual property and encouraging technological progress in the age of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI). The rapid advancement of AI platforms, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini, has transformed the way we generate and consume content. However, the widespread use of AI raises profound ethical and legal questions, particularly in relation to copyright, privacy, and the exploitation of data. A striking example of the risks associated with AI's use in legal contexts

occurred when Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was found guilty of submitting fabricated case citations – referred to by the court as “hallucinations. 2” Despite using the open-search tool Google Bard to source the citations, Cohen’s defence was one of ignorance, shedding light on the potential dangers of over-reliance on AI-generated content. US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, acknowledging AI's efficiency, called for caution and humility in its application, especially in legal processes. This episode highlights the complex intersection of AI and the law, where the traditional legal system may be vulnerable to the generation of false or misleading information by AI systems3.

The incorporation of copyrighted material, such as music, books, and other creative works, into large language models (LLMs) raises significant concerns regarding the protection of creators' rights. As AI technologies evolve and generate personalized content, the question of how to prevent

1 Shashi Tharoor, X, https://x.com/ShashiTharoor/status/1837181659759915161.

2 W. Joel Charboneau et al., The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law, TENTH ANNUAL

WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA JUNE 14,

2024.

3 Id.

exploitation of copyrighted works remains pressing. This paper examines the implications of GenAI on copyright law, privacy, and ethical considerations, with particular focus on how new frameworks, such as India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, may help address these emerging challenges.

GEN-AI TOOLS AND COPYRIGHT VIOLATION OF AN UNPRECEDENTED

SCALE

In the 21st century, data has become the new oil. As we navigate the digital age, we generate vast amounts of personal data through our online interactions, from social media posts to blog entries, and even our search queries. This data has become crucial for training artificial intelligence (AI) systems, particularly generative AI tools, which use large datasets to produce human-like content. However, the growing use of this data by AI developers has raised serious concerns regarding data misuse and potential copyright violations. One of the primary criticisms leveled against AI developers is unauthorized web scraping—an act in which developers collect vast amounts of data from the internet without users' consent. For instance, it has been alleged that OpenAI scraped over 300 billion words from the internet, which includes articles, books, websites, and even personal information4.

This process was conducted without obtaining explicit consent from the individuals whose data was used. The legal ramifications of such actions are significant, particularly in jurisdictions like the United States, where courts have recognized data as a form of property5. Web scraping without permission can be seen as data misappropriation and theft, raising questions about the ethical boundaries of data usage in AI development. Furthermore, when individuals upload content such as images or posts on public platforms like social media or personal blogs, there is still a reasonable expectation that their data will remain secure and used responsibly. The Supreme Court of India, in KS Puttaswamy v.

Union of India6, recognized the right to privacy as an essential facet of the Constitution under Article 21, acknowledging the need for individuals to have control over their personal information. The unauthorized use of such data for training AI systems without consent not only breaches this 4 Uri Gal,ChatGPT is a Data Privacy Nightmare. If you’ve ever posted online, you ought to be concerned, The Conversation, https://theconversation. com/chatgpt-is-a-data-privacy-nightmare-if-youve-ever-posted-onlineyou-ought-to-be-concerned-199283.

5 Calhoun v. Google, 526 F. Supp. 3d 605, 635 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (USA).

6 KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC1 (India).

privacy but also undermines the trust that users place in digital platforms. The failure to protect user data in this context can be considered an intrusion on personal privacy, particularly when the data is used to generate content that may be monetized or distributed at a global scale. Children’s data is a separate concern that requires specific attention. AI systems, which often lack sufficient safeguards, are a significant risk to minors, who are more vulnerable to exploitation, manipulation, and privacy violations. In the United States, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)7 mandates that companies obtain parental consent before collecting data from children. However, such protections are not yet present in many jurisdictions, including India.

In India, self-reporting is the only mechanism available to prevent the exploitation of children’s data, a method which is widely considered ineffective. The absence of robust legal frameworks to protect minors’ data in the AI landscape exacerbates their vulnerability and calls for urgent regulatory intervention. Another concern with generative AI is the production of false or misleading information. AI tools, when asked to generate citations or factual content, have occasionally been found to create “hallucinations”—fictional results that are presented as factual. This issue has been notably problematic in the legal domain, where the AI tool Google Bard, for example, was used by Michael Cohen, former lawyer to Donald Trump, to generate fictitious case citations. These inaccuracies were later identified by the court, which referred to them as “hallucinations.

” Despite Cohen's use of Bard, the court reprimanded his team for failing to verify AI-generated citations, highlighting the dangers of relying on AI for legal purposes without human oversight8. This situation underscores the need for caution when using AI in fields where accuracy is paramount. The legal implications of AI-generated content, especially with regard to copyright law, have been the subject of increasing scrutiny. AI tools such as OpenAI’s GPT models and Google's Gemini generate content by processing vast datasets, which often include copyrighted materials such as books, music, and art. These systems are trained on these works to deliver optimal outputs, but this raises a critical question: how can the rights of creators be protected in this new paradigm? The unregulated use of copyrighted content to train AI models threatens the

7 The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) (USA).

8 W. Joel Charboneau et al., Supra note. 8.

intellectual property rights of artists, writers, and other creators, potentially depriving them of income and recognition. High-profile copyright disputes have already emerged in the United States, particularly in the domains of journalism and entertainment. The case of Authors Guild v. OpenAI9 illustrates the growing concerns of authors whose works are used to train AI systems without permission. The plaintiffs argued that OpenAI’s large language models (LLMs) enable anyone to generate texts similar to those created by human authors, thereby undermining the livelihood of fiction writers. Furthermore, OpenAI’s models can produce derivative works, such as summaries, paraphrases, or mimics of copyrighted texts, which not only harm the original market for these works but also devalue the moral rights of authors. In the music industry, a similar pattern is emerging.

Sony Music and Warner Records recently filed a lawsuit against AI-powered music services Suno and Udio, claiming that the AIgenerated tracks closely resembled the work of their artists10. This raised concerns about the potential loss of revenue for musicians whose works were used to train the AI systems. The plaintiffs in this case emphasized that AI companies, like all other businesses, must comply with the laws that protect human creativity and intellectual property. Their statement reinforces the idea that the introduction of AI technology does not absolve AI developers from adhering to copyright laws. The growing intersection of AI and copyright law is further complicated by the issue of authorship. Traditionally, copyright law has recognized the human creator as the rightful owner of creative works.

However, with the rise of AI-generated content, the question arises: who owns the rights to works created by AI? This question was at the heart of the recent Zarya of the Dawn case11, in which the U. S. Copyright Office initially granted copyright protection to the AI-generated images in a comic book. The office later retracted its decision, arguing that copyright law only applies to works created by humans. This ruling has sparked a legal debate

9 Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 1:23-cv-08292, (S.D.N.Y.) (USA).

10 Music labels sue AI companies Suno, Udio for US copyright infringement, The Economic Times,

https://m.economictimes.com/tech/technology/music-labels-sue-ai-companies-suno-udio-for-us-copyrightinfringement/amp_articleshow/111245721.cms.

11 Tony Analla, Zarya of the Dawn: How AI is Changing the Landscape of Copyright Protection, Harvard

Journal of Law and Technology, https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/zarya-of-the-dawn-how-ai-is-changing-thelandscape-of-copyright-protection.

on whether AI-generated content can be copyrighted and who should be held accountable for infringement. Legal experts, such as Swati Sharma, a partner at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, emphasize the importance of transparency in the copyright application process. She suggests that authors should explicitly disclose whether AI assistance was used in the creation of a work, ensuring that only the human contributions are protected under copyright12. This could help clarify the scope of ownership and prevent misuse of AI-generated content. As generative AI continues to evolve, the need to balance the protection of intellectual property with the promotion of technological innovation becomes increasingly complex. On the one hand, AI has the potential to revolutionize industries by increasing efficiency and expanding creative possibilities.

On the other, it threatens to undermine the livelihoods of creators and the legal frameworks that protect their works. As demonstrated by ongoing legal disputes in the U. S. and other jurisdictions, the intersection of AI and copyright law is still in its infancy, and it remains to be seen how the legal system will adapt to the challenges posed by AI. Ultimately, it is clear that the future of copyright law in the age of AI will require a nuanced approach that recognizes both the benefits of technological progress and the rights of creators. The legal system must evolve to address the complexities of AI-generated content, ensuring that the innovation it brings does not come at the expense of the creators whose work makes such innovation possible.

INDIAN JURISPRUDENCE ON GEN AI: PAST, PRESENT, AND THE FUTURE

The evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has raised profound questions about the ownership and protection of AI-generated works, particularly in relation to copyright law. In the United States, the Copyright Office has taken the position that only works “created by humans” are eligible for protection13. Non-human authors, including AI, are excluded from receiving copyright protection. This stance has prompted debates about whether AI can be considered an author in the legal sense, especially as generative AI tools continue to produce creative works. The position in India mirrors this view, with the Copyright Act, 1957 defining the term "author"

12 Swati Sharma, India Corporate Law, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas,

https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/author/swati-sharma/.

13 Thaler v. Perlmutter, Civil Action 22-1564 (BAH) (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023) (USA).

in relation to computer-generated works as the "person" who causes the work to be generated14. However, like its U. S. counterpart, Indian law does not provide a clear framework for addressing the implications of AI’s role in content creation, leaving legal uncertainty surrounding AI-generated works. Section 13 of the Indian Copyright Act15 requires that any work eligible for copyright protection must be "original," though the statute does not define what constitutes originality in the context of AI-generated content. While AI systems process existing data to generate new works, this raises complex questions regarding the originality of such works and whether they truly qualify for copyright protection.

This ambiguity has been highlighted by the Indian Copyright Office’s reluctance to extend protection to AI-generated content, as demonstrated in instances where AI was listed as a co-author with a human creator. Moreover, the 161st Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the Copyright Act16 concluded that the existing framework is inadequate to address the challenges posed by AI and recommended that new mechanisms be developed to incentivize innovation, particularly through patent protection. It suggested that patent protections could help encourage research and development in AI, with a specific focus on the creative outputs of AI systems. The Report’s suggestion to extend patent protection to AI-generated works provides an interesting angle in the broader conversation about how intellectual property law should evolve in response to emerging technologies.

While patent protection could incentivize innovation and further the development of AI-based expressions, there is a case to be made for extending this reasoning to copyright law as well. Just as AI's potential to innovate in fields like medicine and technology is recognized, AI’s role in creating new forms of artistic and literary work should not be overlooked. By extending copyright protection to AI-generated content, we would encourage greater creativity, enabling AI tools to become a vital part of the creative industries. India's data protection law also intersects with these copyright concerns. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which was enacted to govern the processing of personal data, includes provisions that give individuals the "right to be forgotten17. " This right allows

14 Copyright Act, 1957, § 2(d).

15 Copyright Act, 1957, § 13.

16 Para 8.3, 161st Report “Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India”, (23rd July 2021) page 30, https://files.lbr.cloud/public/2021- 07/161_2021_7_15.pdf?VersionId=S01fCQEC5DzDqKNymsGgxal6YXmJbUwM.

17 Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023,§ 12.

individuals to request the removal of their personal data from databases, which could, in theory, offer a solution for removing copyrighted material that was used without consent in AI training datasets. However, this provision faces practical challenges, particularly with regard to AI systems that cannot "unlearn" the data they have been trained on18. Once an AI model is trained on a dataset, that data becomes an integral part of the system's learning, and there is no straightforward method to remove the data once it has been incorporated. For instance, in the case of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, turning off the "opt-out" feature for data collection only prevents future data from being included in the training process, but it does not remove data that has already been fed into the system19.

This raises concerns about the permanence of personal and copyrighted information once it is processed by AI models, posing a challenge for the effective enforcement of copyright protections. In India, courts have been proactive in addressing some of the emerging challenges posed by AI, especially with regard to preventing the misuse of AI-generated content for copyright infringement. The case of Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India20 saw an injunction issued against the use of AI to create fake, morphed content that misappropriated an individual’s likeness for commercial purposes. This case highlighted the need to safeguard personal rights, particularly personality rights, in the face of rapidly advancing AI technologies. Similarly, the Mareta v. Google Inc21.

case in the United States, which discussed the broad interpretation of copyright protections to cover new technologies, has found resonance in Indian jurisprudence. The Indian courts have acknowledged that AI technologies, like any other tool, must be regulated to prevent harm, but there is still a significant gap in the law when it comes to AI-generated content. Despite the steps taken by the judiciary, the Indian legal system is still ill-equipped to address the full range of complexities that AI-generated works present. Legal experts pointed out that India is still far from a holistic solution to the issue of AI-generated content. They emphasized that current legal precedents are insufficient to address the complexities surrounding AI, as the law was not drafted with AI’s capabilities in mind.

The primary challenge lies in determining liability—whether it is the AI company that creates the software, or the individual or entity that

18 Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., Manu/Deor/248558/2023.

19 Johanna C., How Do I Turn Off Chat History and Model Training?, OPENAI,

https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7792795-how-do-i-turn-off-chat-history-and-model-training.

20 Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., Supra note. 18.

21 Matera v. Google Inc., Case No. 15-CV-04062-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sep. 23, 2016) (USA).

uses the tool to create copyrighted material. These issues of liability are critical, particularly as AI becomes increasingly integrated into various sectors, including content creation, entertainment, and journalism. The evolving landscape of AI-generated content presents a significant challenge for Indian copyright law. As the legal framework continues to grapple with questions of authorship, liability, and the ethical use of AI, the need for reform becomes increasingly urgent. Lawmakers must address these issues by updating existing statutes to incorporate AI’s growing influence on creative industries. Whether through extending copyright protections to AI-generated works, refining the definition of authorship, or clarifying liability frameworks, India’s copyright law must evolve to keep pace with the technological revolution driven by AI.

In doing so, the legal system will be better equipped to protect both creators and innovators, ensuring that AI can be harnessed to drive creativity without undermining the intellectual property rights of human creators.

AI AND COPYRIGHT: THE OWNERSHIP DILEMMA

The question of copyright ownership in AI-generated works continues to challenge existing legal frameworks, especially in jurisdictions like India, where the Copyright Act, 1957, traditionally recognizes only human authorship. A case study22 from India illustrates the complexities surrounding this issue. An applicant, Ankit Sahani, who owned an AI-based painting app named Raghav, filed two separate copyright applications for an AI-generated artwork called Suryast. In the first application, Sahani listed the AI app, Raghav, as the author, but the Copyright Office rejected it on the grounds that the author must be a natural person. In response, Sahani filed a second application, naming both himself and the AI tool Raghav as coauthors. However, this application was also met with objections, with the Copyright Office seeking to cancel the registration altogether.

This case highlights the ongoing legal uncertainty surrounding the authorship and ownership of AI-generated content. As Sharma23 points out, the current legal framework in India aims to recognize only natural persons as owners of copyrighted works, but this raises the fundamental question: who should be considered the rightful owner when an AI tool generates the content? Is it the creator of the

22 Copyright and AI: Redefining Authorship in the Digital Age, Legally Flawless,

https://legallyflawless.in/copyright-ai-redefining-authorship-digital-age/.

23 Swati Sharma, India Corporate Law, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Supra note. 12.

AI system, the user of the system, or the system itself? The ambiguity of this issue remains unresolved, and legal experts like Negi at Fidus Law Chambers24 argue that current laws do not explicitly address these scenarios. This suggests that future legislative or judicial clarifications will be necessary to provide clear guidance on how copyright ownership should be determined for works created by non-human entities. The dilemma surrounding non-human creators is not unique to AI. In fact, a notable case in the United States, Naruto v. Slater25, known as the "monkey selfie" case, provides an interesting parallel. In 2011, wildlife photographer David Slater left his camera unattended in Sulawesi, Indonesia, where a crested macaque named Naruto allegedly took several selfies.

While Slater claimed ownership of the photographs, animal rights activists argued that Naruto, as the original creator of the images, should hold the copyright. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the monkey, stating that the Copyright Act does not grant animals the standing to sue for copyright infringement. While the court did not grant copyright rights to the animal, its decision opened up a broader debate on the issue of personhood in the context of copyright law, which is now relevant to AI-generated content. Drawing a comparison between Naruto the monkey and AI, Sharma26 suggests that the legal framework may eventually need to address whether non-human entities, such as machines, can hold copyright or pursue claims for infringement. While current laws do not explicitly grant such rights to non-humans, the debate sparked by cases like Naruto v.

Slater could be a precursor to future legal discussions regarding AI’s role in content creation. In most Western jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, copyright protection is limited to human authorship. India follows a similar stance, clearly stating that AI cannot be considered an author under its Copyright Act. As traditional copyright law is built around human authorship, with the recognition that only humans can create and own works. However, this framework fails to account for the rise of AI as a tool for generating creative content, creating a significant gap in the law. Another key challenge in addressing the issue of AI-generated works is the balancing of

24 Astha Negi, Fidus Law Chambers, https://www.fiduslawchambers.com/astha-negi.php.

25 Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018) (USA).

26 Swati Sharma, India Corporate Law, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Supra note. 12.

economic interests and moral rights of creators. Negi27 emphasizes that traditional copyright law confers specific rights to human authors, including economic rights—such as the ability to monetize their works—and moral rights, such as the right to attribution and the protection of the work’s integrity. These rights are essential for protecting the interests of creators, but they become complicated when the creator is not a human being. The question then becomes: how can the moral and economic rights of creators be preserved if the creator is an AI system or a machine? As AI continues to evolve and take a more active role in content creation, the legal system must grapple with these new challenges. Traditional notions of authorship and ownership are increasingly being tested, and new frameworks may be required to ensure that AI-generated content is adequately protected.

Whether through the extension of copyright protections to AIgenerated works, the establishment of new liability regimes, or the development of entirely new forms of intellectual property law, it is clear that the legal system must adapt to the changing landscape of creativity in the digital age. The ongoing discussions and legal developments surrounding AI-generated content will likely shape the future of intellectual property law and its application to non-human creators.

FAIR-USE CONSIDERATIONS IN AI-GENERATED CONTENT

The doctrine of fair use28 is crucial when considering AI-generated content and its potential infringement on existing copyright. Currently, the responsibility to ensure that AI-generated content does not infringe upon copyright typically lies with the user, according to the terms of service for most AI tools. However, some experts argue that this responsibility should primarily rest with the AI developers, and secondarily with users29. India's legal framework offers protection for AI-generated works under the existing patent and copyright laws. Section 1430 of the Copyright Act defines what constitutes copyright in literary, dramatic, and musical works, including those created using computer programs, while Section

5131 outlines the various circumstances under which copyright infringement occurs. On the

27 Astha Negi, Fidus Law Chambers, Supra note. 24.

28 Rajshree Mukharjee,Fair Use Law in India Under Copyright Act, ipleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/fair-uselaw-india-copyright-act/. 29 Anuradha Gandhi et al., Supreme Court’s Guidance on the Use of Generative AI Tools in Court Proceedings, Lexilogy, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c4b5998e-bb95-4b3f-8ced-ddc3e44e31ac.

30 Copyright Act, 1957, § 14.

31 Copyright Act, 1957, § 51.

other hand, Section 5232 introduces the doctrine of fair use, allowing certain actions, such as personal use or critique, to fall outside the scope of infringement. The concept of fair use, however, remains highly subjective, and its application in the context of AI-generated content demands careful consideration. Determining what constitutes fair use in this context will likely require judicial interpretation, as the legal landscape for AI and intellectual property continues to evolve. A critical question also arises regarding liability— whether the AI developer or the user should be held accountable for any infringement remains unclear. In light of these complexities, there is a growing need for lawmakers to refine existing laws and policies related to AI-generated content.

There must be a clear distinction between the work produced by AI and the effort required to develop such AI-generated content, ensuring that appropriate protections are granted in each case.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

As AI-generated content becomes increasingly ingrained in our daily lives, we are confronted with a pressing need to address the complexities it brings to the realms of law, ethics, and privacy. The rise of AI technologies such as language models and generative tools is reshaping industries and challenging traditional legal frameworks in ways we had not anticipated. It is clear that these advancements warrant a comprehensive discussion, one that goes beyond the surface of technological innovation and delves into the profound implications they have for intellectual property, privacy, and human rights. In this context, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The 161st Parliamentary Standing Committee’s recommendation33 to create a distinct category of rights for AI-generated works is a critical step toward a more structured legal approach.

However, this proposal is just the beginning of what needs to be a far-reaching conversation on how to regulate and manage the proliferation of AI in creative domains.

32 Copyright Act, 1957, § 52.

33 Para 8.5, 161st Report “Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India”, (23rd July 2021) page 31, https://files.lbr.cloud/public/2021- 07/161_2021_7_15.pdf?VersionId=S01fCQEC5DzDqKNymsGgxal6YXmJbUwM.

One possible solution could be the establishment of an independent AI Council, a "Certification Board" tasked with evaluating AI platforms against pre-defined standards. Such a body would not only approve or reject AI tools but would also ensure that they adhere to ethical and legal guidelines before being released into the public domain. This move could help to bridge the gap between rapid technological progress and the need for responsible innovation. Moreover, the issue of accountability in AI-generated content cannot be ignored. As AI platforms like GPT-4 continue to be monetized, it is vital that copyright infringements are met with proper financial restitution. Any violation of intellectual property rights must involve compensation for creators, and more importantly, adherence to our foundational ethical principles.

Establishing accountability platforms would provide a mechanism for users to report and resolve disputes, ensuring that AI platforms are held responsible for the content they generate. Transparency and cybersecurity protocols must also play a central role in the evolution of AI regulation. Given the rising concerns around data privacy, especially in light of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, it is crucial that AI systems are equipped with robust data handling practices. This includes ensuring the right to erasure and safeguarding sensitive information, particularly data involving children, which is far more vulnerable to exploitation. The implementation of strong security measures would help mitigate the risks associated with AI’s insidious capacity for data scraping and misuse.

Lastly, it is worth considering the creation of an AI Fund, dedicated to the rapid resolution of any future copyright infringements and the protection of privacy rights. Such a fund could serve as a financial safety net for those whose work or personal data has been exploited by AI tools. In addition, legal provisions could be introduced to prevent the misuse of children’s data, as they are among the most vulnerable in this digital age. These steps would align with the principles enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards the right to privacy, and ensure that AI development occurs within a framework of legal and ethical responsibility. As we look ahead, it is essential to approach the intersection of AI and law with both caution and foresight.

The challenges are multifaceted, involving not only questions of ownership and infringement but also deeper ethical dilemmas regarding privacy, data usage, and

accountability. It is up to lawmakers, legal professionals, and technology developers to engage in thoughtful dialogue and to craft a regulatory framework that ensures the responsible use of AI while protecting the rights of creators and individuals alike. The future of AI in our society depends on our collective ability to strike a balance between innovation and the safeguarding of fundamental rights.

References Abraham, K. (2024, September 19 ). AI’s right to copy. Retrieved from India Business Law Journal: https://law. asia/generative-ai-copyright-law/ Agrawal, S. J. (n. d. ). Indian Copyright Law and Generative AI. Retrieved from SaiKrishna & Associates: https://www. saikrishnaassociates. com/indian-copyright-law-and-generative-ai/ Dadhich, S. S. (2023, October 23). Guardians of Genius: Securing Tomorrow’s Generative AI via Copyright Protection. Retrieved from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas: https://corporate. cyrilamarchandblogs. com/2023/10/guardians-of-genius-securingtomorrows-generative-ai-via-copyright-protection/#_ftnref33 Dutt, S. B. (2024, September 16). AI-Generated Art: A Challenge to Creative Integrity? Retrieved from India Journal of Law and Technology : https://www. ijlt. in/post/ai-generatedart-a-challenge-to-creative-integrity Jagnani, A. (2024, November 16).

Intellectual Property & AI-generated Works: is India Ready? Retrieved from NLIU Law Review: https://nliulawreview. nliu. ac. in/blog/intellectual-propertyai-generated-works-is-india-ready/