Generative AI And Copyright Law - A Comparative Analysis Of Indian And International Frameworks

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Technology, Cyber & Privacy

Published: 2026-08-23T19:57:44.651Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:11:49.781Z

GENERATIVE AI AND COPYRIGHT LAW: A

COMPARATIVE

ANALYSIS

OF INDIAN AND INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORKS Prashant Shukla, LLM (Business Law), Amity University, Lucknow Dr. Mudra Singh, Amity University, Lucknow

ABSTRACT

The rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has reshaped the landscape of copyright law, raising complex legal and ethical questions regarding ownership, authorship, and infringement. Traditional copyright frameworks, designed for human creators, struggle to accommodate AIgenerated works, leading to a legal gray area. Central to this debate is whether AI-generated content qualifies for copyright protection and, if so, who holds the rights—the AI developer, the user prompting the AI, or neither. Courts and legislatures worldwide grapple with these challenges, often arriving at divergent conclusions. Moreover, generative AI complicates enforcement mechanisms by enabling mass production of derivative works, potentially infringing upon existing copyrights while blurring the lines between inspiration and reproduction.

Rights holders face difficulties in identifying and mitigating AI-driven infringement, necessitating adaptive regulatory frameworks and technological safeguards. Jurisdictions have responded differently, with some considering new legal paradigms, such as sui generis rights for AI-generated content or revising existing doctrines like fair use and transformative works. The European Union’s Digital Services Act and the United States’ evolving stance on AIauthored works exemplify such attempts. This paper explores the intersection of digital copyright and generative AI, critically analyzing current legal responses, potential policy reforms, and the need for a harmonized global approach.

As AI continues to challenge fundamental copyright principles, a balanced regulatory framework must ensure both innovation and the protection of creative rights, fostering legal certainty in an increasingly AI-driven digital economy.

Introduction

The advent of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized the creative industries, enabling the production of art, music, literature, and other forms of content at an unprecedented scale and speed. However, this technological leap has also introduced significant challenges to the existing copyright legal frameworks, which were primarily designed to protect human creativity. The central question that arises is whether AI-generated content can be protected under copyright law and, if so, who should be recognized as the rightful owner of such works— the AI developer, the user who prompts the AI, or neither. This paper aims to explore the intersection of generative AI and copyright law, with a particular focus on the Indian legal framework and its compatibility with international laws.

The paper will critically analyze the current legal responses to AI-generated content, potential policy reforms, and the need for a harmonized global approach to address the challenges posed by AI in the realm of copyright law.

1 The Concept of Authorship in Copyright Law

Copyright law traditionally recognizes the author as the human creator of a work. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which forms the cornerstone of international copyright law, defines the author as the person who creates the work. Similarly, the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, under Section 2(d), defines an author as the person who causes the work to be created. However, the Act does not explicitly address the issue of AI-generated works. The question of authorship becomes particularly complex in the context of AI-generated content. If an AI system creates a piece of music or a painting, who should be considered the author? Should it be the developer of the AI, the user who provided the input, or the AI itself? The lack of clarity in the law has led to a legal gray area, with courts and legislatures worldwide grappling with these questions.

2 Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works

The eligibility of AI-generated works for copyright protection is another contentious issue. Under traditional copyright law, a work must be original and exhibit a minimum level of creativity to qualify for protection. However, the originality requirement is typically tied to human authorship. In the case of AI-generated works, the absence of human involvement raises questions about whether such works can be considered original and thus eligible for copyright protection. In the United States, the Copyright Office has taken the position that works created by machines or mere mechanical processes without any human input are not eligible for copyright protection. This stance was reaffirmed in the case of *Naruto v. Slater*, where the court held that a monkey could not hold copyright in a photograph it had taken.

Similarly, in the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has emphasized the importance of human authorship in determining copyright eligibility. In India, the Copyright Act does not explicitly address the issue of AI-generated works. However, the Act’s requirement of originality and human authorship suggests that AIgenerated works may not qualify for copyright protection. This raises significant concerns for AI developers and users, who may be left without legal recourse in the event of infringement.

3 Ownership of AI-Generated Works

Even if AI-generated works are deemed eligible for copyright protection, the question of ownership remains unresolved. Should the copyright vest in the AI developer, the user who prompted the AI, or the AI itself? The answer to this question has significant implications for the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved. In the United States, the Copyright Office has indicated that the copyright in AI-generated works would likely vest in the human user who provided the input, rather than the AI developer. However, this approach has been criticized for failing to account for the significant contributions of AI developers in creating the underlying algorithms and systems. In India, the Copyright Act does not provide clear guidance on the ownership of AI-generated works.

However, the Act’s emphasis on human authorship suggests that the copyright may vest in the user who provided the input, rather than the AI developer. This approach may not adequately address the interests of AI developers, who play a crucial role in the creation of AIgenerated works.

4 Enforcement Challenges in the Age of Generative AI

Generative AI has introduced new challenges for copyright enforcement. The ability of AI systems to produce large volumes of derivative works has made it increasingly difficult for rights holders to identify and mitigate infringement. Moreover, the line between inspiration and reproduction has become blurred, raising questions about the scope of copyright protection in the context of AI-generated works. In the European Union, the Digital Services Act (DSA) seeks to address some of these challenges by imposing obligations on online platforms to detect and remove infringing content. However, the effectiveness of such measures in the context of AI-generated works remains to be seen. In India, the Copyright Act provides for civil and criminal remedies for copyright infringement. However, the Act does not specifically address the challenges posed by AI-generated works.

As a result, rights holders may face difficulties in enforcing their rights in the context of AIgenerated content.

5 Potential Policy Reforms and the Need for a Harmonized Global Approach

The challenges posed by generative AI to copyright law necessitate a reevaluation of existing legal frameworks. One potential approach is the creation of sui generis rights for AI-generated works, which would provide a separate legal regime for such works. This approach has been proposed in some jurisdictions, including the European Union, where the idea of a “neighboring right” for AI-generated works has been discussed. Another potential reform is the revision of existing doctrines, such as fair use and transformative works, to better accommodate AI-generated content. In the United States, the fair use doctrine has been applied to allow the use of copyrighted works in certain circumstances, such as for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. However, the application of this doctrine to AI-generated works remains uncertain.

In India, the Copyright Act includes provisions for fair dealing, which allow the use of copyrighted works for certain purposes, such as private use, research, and criticism. However, the scope of fair dealing in the context of AI-generated works is unclear, and there is a need for legislative clarity on this issue. Given the global nature of AI and the digital economy, there is a pressing need for a harmonized approach to the regulation of AI-generated works. International cooperation and the development of global standards could help to address the challenges posed by AI to copyright law and ensure legal certainty for all stakeholders. Conclusion: The rapid advancement of generative AI has introduced significant challenges to the existing copyright legal frameworks, raising complex legal and ethical questions regarding ownership, authorship, and infringement.

Traditional copyright frameworks, designed for human creators, struggle to accommodate AI-generated works, leading to a legal gray area. Central to this debate is whether AI-generated content qualifies for copyright protection and, if so, who holds the rights—the AI developer, the user prompting the AI, or neither. Courts and legislatures worldwide grapple with these challenges, often arriving at divergent conclusions. Jurisdictions have responded differently, with some considering new legal paradigms, such as sui generis rights for AI-generated content or revising existing doctrines like fair use and transformative works. The European Union’s Digital Services Act and the United States’ evolving stance on AI-authored works exemplify such attempts.

This paper has explored the intersection of digital copyright and generative AI, critically analyzing current legal responses, potential policy reforms, and the need for a harmonized global approach. As AI continues to challenge fundamental copyright principles, a balanced regulatory framework must ensure both innovation and the protection of creative rights, fostering legal certainty in an increasingly AI-driven digital economy.

REFERENCES:

1. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886.

2. Indian Copyright Act, 1957.

3. *Naruto v. Slater*, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).

4. European Union Digital Services Act, 2022.

5. U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition,

2021.

6. Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Case C-145/10, *Eva-Maria Painer v.

Standard VerlagsGmbH*, 2011.

7. Indian Copyright Act, 1957, Section 52 (Fair Dealing).

8 European Commission, “White Paper on Artificial Intelligence

A European approach to excellence and trust,” 2020.

9 U.S. Copyright Office, “Copyright in AI-Generated Works

A Legal Analysis,” 2021.

10. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on

Intellectual Property Policy,”

2019 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Goldstein, P., & Hugenholtz, P. B. (2019). *International Copyright: Principles, Law, and

Practice*. Oxford University Press.

2 Ginsburg, J. C., & Budiardjo, L. A. (2020). *Copyright and AI-Generated Works

A Comparative Analysis*. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 43(3), 335-368.

3. Samuelson, P. (2021). *AI and the Future of Copyright Law*. Harvard Journal of Law &

Technology, 34(2), 1-45.

4 Lessig, L. (2008). *Remix

Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy*.

Penguin Press.

5 Suthersanen, U. (2020). *Copyright, Creativity, and Artificial Intelligence

A Comparative Perspective*. In *Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property* (pp. 45-68). Oxford University Press.

6. Guadamuz, A. (2017). *Artificial Intelligence and Copyright*. WIPO Magazine, 5, 12-15.

7 Bridy, A. (2016). *Coding Creativity

Stanford Technology Law Review, 20, 1-30.

8 Abbott, R. (2016). *I Think, Therefore I Invent

Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law*. Boston College Law Review, 57(4), 1079-1126.

9. Hilty, R. M., & Moscon, V. (2017). *Copyright Law and the Information Society in Asia*.

Edward Elgar Publishing.