INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized many fields, including technology, law, healthcare, and the creative arts. Legal scholars and practitioners have been forced to re-examine and traditional framework of Intellectual property (IP) due to AI’s ability to produce literature, music, designs, and inventions. Conventional IP regimes are predicted on human ingenuity and inventiveness. But development of self-governing AI systems that can produce original work raises important issues: is AI and inventor or an author? If not, who is the owner of the rights to works produced by AI?

What is said about such ownership in Indian law with an emphasis on Indian jurisprudence. This blog explores the intricate relationship between AI and intellectual property rights while also citing global perspectives. It aims to access the adequacy of the current legal structure and suggest directions for reform considering technological process.

UNDERSTANDING AI-GENERATED WORKS

Literary, artistic, musical, technical, and other works created with little to no human involvement are referred to as AI generated works. AI generated artwork, music, and even news articles are a few examples. Machines are producing outputs that are identical to those written by human authors. Thanks to generated models like Google’s DeepMind, DALL.E and GPT. Finding the legitimate authorship or inventorship of such works is the main obstacle. Like majority of international legal systems, Indian IP law makes the assumptions that writers and inventors are either natural or legal persons.

This presumption stems from human subjectivity and ability to think, both of which are qualities that Machines lack.

COPYRIGHT LAW: WHO IS THE AUTHOR?

In India, copyright is governed by the Copyright Act,1957 which provides protection for original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works among others. Section 2(d) defines an “author” depending on the type of work, for instance, in the case of literary work, the author is the person who created the work.

However, AI lack legal personhood and therefore cannot be teamed an author under current Indian law. The true dilemma occurs when artificial intelligence creates a piece of work on its own without significant human involvement. The next query is: Who is the copyright owner? On a global scale countries such as the United Kingdom have adopted a more comprehensive strategy. The author of computer-generated works is defined as “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken” under section 9(3) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988. However, India lacks a comparable provision. In CASE Eastern Book Company v. D. B. Modak the Indian Supreme Court ruled that a work must exhibit “minimal creativity” and the use of “skill and judgement” to be eligible for copyright protection. Weather prompting an air tool meets this threshold remains debatable.

PATENT LAW: AI AS AN INVENTOR?

The Patents Act of 1970 is the law that governs patents in India. Section 6 says that “anyone who says are the true and first inventor” can apply for a patent. The term “person” is generally defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which does not include machines. The DABUS case has gotten a lot of attention around the world.

Stephen Thaler tried to patent inventions made by AI system called DABUS naming the AI as the inventor. Patent offices in the US, UK and you turn down the application because they said that an inventor must be a real person, UK court of appeal stated that “only a natural person can be inventor.” Indian law seems to agree with this point of view.

MORAL RIGHTS AND ATTRIBUTION

The idea of moral rights, which includes the right of paternity (authorship) the right of integrity is another area of disagreement. These rights are only available to human authors according to Section 57 of the Copyright Act of 1957. AI is not sentient, so it doesn’t have the consciousness or dignity to claim moral rights. But what about the people who make or use AI tools? Can they say that they are generated works on morally, right? It depends on how creative the person is. In R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, the court made clear that ideas alone are not copyrightable. This means that if a user only gives prompt and doesn’t add any artistic or naturally expression, the court may not have enough evidence to recognize authorship.

In the world of intellectual property, moral rights are deeply personal. These rights are not about making money. They are about recognition and respect. They ensure that the creator is credited for their work, and the work isn’t used in a way that harm their reputation. But here’s the dilemma. What happens when a machine creates a work?

AI doesn’t have feelings. It doesn’t care about credit. It doesn’t have a reputation to protect and crucially. It isn’t a legal person that’s a major point when it comes to moral rights. According to Indian law and natural persons, in other words, humans can hold moral rights. The law resumes that are not has a soul, a sense of self and a stake in how their work is used and AI system. However, brilliant doesn’t meet the standard.

CHALLENGES IN OWNERSHIP AND LICENSING

As AI continues to produce creative works, the question of ownership becomes increasingly complicated. Traditional intellectual property laws, including copyright and patents, assume that human beings are the creators of work or inventions, but what happens when a machine without human intervention produces something novel? Who owns that work and how should it be licensed?

Ownership is one of the most pressing issues in this field. If AI can’t write or make things who owns what it makes?

AI developers: The people who make the algorithm might claim rights, especially if the AI was made to make certain kind of content. One argument is that the developer of the AI system should on the rights to any works produced by the AI after all they created the framework algorithms and the machine learning model that enable AI to generate content.

AI users: Users for AI tools to make certain things say that they oversaw the creative process. Another argument is that the person who interact with the giving the instructions that lead to the generation of a work should hold the rights.

AI itself: Lastly, there is the question of whether AI system good in theory on the rights to the work they made. Some people have asked if we will need a new group of “AI creators” in the future, even though AI is not currently recognized as a legal entity.

As of right now, AI is not recognized by Indian law like most jurisdictions globally doesn’t recognize AI as a legal entity with the capacity to have rights. Naturally, artificial intelligence does not meet the requirement of the patent act of 1970, which explicitly states that inventors must be persons. There are currently no precedents or provisions in Indian legal system for dealing with these novel types of infringement. For instance, the Supreme Court ruled in K.K. Verma v. Union of India that the principle of justice, equity, and good conscience should be applied when dealing with intellectual property infringement.

GLOBAL APPROACHES: A COMPARATIVE SNAPSHOT

The world community is still divided. AI generated works have been denied authorization by the US copy Radhe office due to the absence of human authorship. China, on the other hand has acknowledged limited copyright for AI generated works so long as human labor was used for selection or compilation. Although the European Union is investigating AI liability and accountability under the proposed artificial intelligence act, it has not yet granted machines, authorship or inventorship status.

Must find a balance between prompting innovation and defending the rights of human creators as member to the TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention. These treaties promote the coordination of copyright principles, but they do not require the recognition of non-human authors.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND THE WAY FORWARD

India needs to proactively reform its intellectual property laws considering the rapid advancement of AI technologies. Among the crucial recommendations are:

• Statutory Amendments:
• Create a new category for computer generated works under the copyright act.
• Clearly define “person” in the patents act to exclude AI systems, unless they are aided by human inventors.
• Attribution of AI output:
• In the absence of explicit agreements, acknowledge developers or users as the default owners of the rights.
• Licensing framework:
• Create a uniform licensing mechanism for AI generated content with transparency on ownership, use and liability.
• Ethical and constitutional dimensions:
• Ensure that any attribution or protection granted to AI generated works does not infringe upon fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and right to livelihood under article 19(1)(a) an article 21 of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION

Unquestionably, artificial intelligence is changing the technological and creative landscape. However, the autonomy and complexity of AI systems are not considered by our legal system, which is still based on human centric principles. The law must change to handle issues of authorship, ownership, and liability as AI continues to rot the lines between creativity and invention. India is at a turning point. The nation must choose whether to view AI as a collaborative entity that merits a new legal framework or merely a tool. Humans will continue to be the focus of intellectual property rights until AI gains legal personhood, which is currently a remote possibility. But in the AI age, it is crucial to reinterpret what creativity, authorship and innovation mean to make sure the law is both flexible and just.

END NOTES

1. General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 3(42) – Definition of “person”.
2. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1.
3. Thaler v. Comptroller General of Patents, [2021] EWCA Civ1374 (UK Court. Of Appeal).
4. R. G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613.
5. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd v. Sanjay Dalia, (2015) 10 SCC 161.
6. University of London Press Ltd. V. University Tutorial Press Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch 601 – referred to in Indian copyright jurisprudence.
7. Copyright Act, 1957, Section 2(d), Section 57.
8. Patents Act, 1970, Section 6.
9. TRIPS Agreement, Article 9 – Relation to the Berne Convention.