From stylized Studio Ghibli-inspired AI art to AI-generated coding assistants, the digital world is witnessing an explosion of machine-led creativity. And yet, our legal definitions of ownership and originality remain tethered to the idea that only humans can create. Rooted in 19th-century treaties like the Paris Convention (1883) and the Berne Convention (1886), global Intellectual Property (IP) law grants authorship and invention rights solely to natural persons.
As AI becomes an increasingly autonomous creator, India — like much of the world — must confront a foundational legal dilemma: who owns what an algorithm creates? Countries are racing to build AI leadership, but regulation, ethics, and IP frameworks are often trailing far behind.
Encouragingly, India ranked 6th globally for patent filings through WIPO in the 2023 Global Innovation Index, with significant contributions in ICT, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. This shows our ecosystem has the capacity to drive innovation. However, as artificial intelligence begins to reshape sectors ranging from agriculture to art, India's current intellectual property regime remains ill-equipped to handle the complexities of machine-generated work.
India's Copyright Act currently recognises IP ownership only when there is clear human involvement. This was tested in 2020 when an AI system named 'RAGHAV' attempted to secure copyright for a painting, ‘Suryast’. The application was initially rejected due to the absence of a human author, later revised when a natural person was added as co-author. Eventually, a withdrawal notice was issued, leaving ambiguity around whether an AI can be considered a legitimate creator.
AI and the Gaps in India’s IPR Framework
AI-created content doesn’t fit neatly into India’s existing legal definitions. The Copyright Act (1957) and Patents Act (1970) both mandate a human author or inventor, creating grey areas around works or inventions autonomously generated by AI. As a result, questions like "Who owns AI-generated art or code?" remain unresolved.
While AI-generated inventions may meet criteria like novelty and industrial applicability under Section 2(1) of the Patents Act, courts could still reject them due to the absence of a human “inventive step.” Compounding the issue, existing laws do not acknowledge the developer or programmer as the inventor, especially in cases where the AI operates independently.
Additionally, the legality of training AI on datasets — many scraped from online platforms — remains unclear. India lacks specific legislation around data ownership and licensing, complicating the ethics and legality of AI model development. Without defined norms, the commercial deployment of AI may face future legal hurdles.
The Evolving Landscape: Some Signs of Progress
Legal scholar Dr. Shlomit Yanisky Ravid outlines eight characteristics that give AI the ability to invent and create, such as autonomy, rationality, and communication abilities. These features make it feasible for AI to generate outputs that, if created by humans, would qualify for copyright or patent protection.
While Indian law hasn’t yet addressed these complexities, there are green shoots. NITI Aayog’s draft National AI Strategy recognises the urgency of revisiting IPR regulations to accommodate AI-generated works. Simultaneously, the upcoming Digital India Act aims to include guidelines on data governance and algorithmic responsibility, paving the way for a more adaptive regulatory environment.
Looking globally, several jurisdictions have made strides. The UK’s Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 explicitly protects computer-generated works, assigning authorship to the person who orchestrates the creation. Countries like New Zealand and Ireland have adopted similar provisions.
Where Does the Buck Stop?
AI is not just transforming innovation — it is also raising red flags. Deepfakes, misinformation, and AI art that mimics human styles all underscore the risks of unregulated autonomy. When AI plagiarises or mimics an artist’s work, who’s accountable?
There’s no definitive answer yet. In the absence of AI-specific liability rules, responsibility could fall on developers, users, or intermediaries. Some propose treating AI models akin to hazardous products, assigning liability even without proven intent or negligence. But in India, legal clarity is still missing.
These challenges are not just theoretical. Questions over who trains AI, using whose data, and for what commercial purpose, are already disrupting content, media, and software industries. The Ghibli-style AI images that recently went viral may have delighted viewers, but also sparked debates about authorship and originality.
What to Watch Out For
As AI becomes a foundational tool across sectors, India needs to urgently clarify three areas of IP law:
Legal Status of AI-generated Works: Should the rights vest in the AI’s creator, the user, or the deploying organisation? Without clarity, India risks stalling innovation.
Data Rights and Licensing: India currently has no law governing dataset usage in AI training. Laws around consent, licensing, and data ethics will be key.
IPR and Open Innovation: India’s push for a homegrown Open AI demands a balance between openness and IP protection. Licensing frameworks must reward innovation while safeguarding public interest.
Ashwini Vaishnaw, Minister, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, has publicly acknowledged the disruptive potential of AI in the creative sector, urging policymakers to protect original creators. Meanwhile, the U.S. Patent Office has issued guidelines requiring proof of human contribution in AI-assisted inventions, and jurisdictions like Japan and Singapore have adopted forward-looking frameworks that allow AI training using copyrighted material — sometimes even for commercial use.
Conclusion
India’s intellectual property regime has long balanced innovation with public interest —most notably in pharmaceutical access through its generic drug provisions. But AI is rewriting the playbook. With applications across every major sector, from healthcare to entertainment, the rules must evolve.
If India truly wants to lead in AI — especially through its “AI for All” mission — it must build a legal framework that protects creators, enables fair access to data, and supports ethical AI training. Only then can the country foster an ecosystem where technology is inclusive, sustainable, and globally competitive.
Locations
contact@stratinkconsulting.com
080-25800089
The IPR Question: Is Our Legal Framework AI-Ready
From stylized Studio Ghibli-inspired AI art to AI-generated coding assistants, the digital world is witnessing an explosion of machine-led creativity. And yet, our legal definitions of ownership and originality remain tethered to the idea that only humans can create. Rooted in 19th-century treaties like the Paris Convention (1883) and the Berne Convention (1886), global Intellectual Property (IP) law grants authorship and invention rights solely to natural persons.
As AI becomes an increasingly autonomous creator, India — like much of the world — must confront a foundational legal dilemma: who owns what an algorithm creates? Countries are racing to build AI leadership, but regulation, ethics, and IP frameworks are often trailing far behind.
Encouragingly, India ranked 6th globally for patent filings through WIPO in the 2023 Global Innovation Index, with significant contributions in ICT, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. This shows our ecosystem has the capacity to drive innovation. However, as artificial intelligence begins to reshape sectors ranging from agriculture to art, India's current intellectual property regime remains ill-equipped to handle the complexities of machine-generated work.
India's Copyright Act currently recognises IP ownership only when there is clear human involvement. This was tested in 2020 when an AI system named 'RAGHAV' attempted to secure copyright for a painting, ‘Suryast’. The application was initially rejected due to the absence of a human author, later revised when a natural person was added as co-author. Eventually, a withdrawal notice was issued, leaving ambiguity around whether an AI can be considered a legitimate creator.
AI and the Gaps in India’s IPR Framework
AI-created content doesn’t fit neatly into India’s existing legal definitions. The Copyright Act (1957) and Patents Act (1970) both mandate a human author or inventor, creating grey areas around works or inventions autonomously generated by AI. As a result, questions like "Who owns AI-generated art or code?" remain unresolved.
While AI-generated inventions may meet criteria like novelty and industrial applicability under Section 2(1) of the Patents Act, courts could still reject them due to the absence of a human “inventive step.” Compounding the issue, existing laws do not acknowledge the developer or programmer as the inventor, especially in cases where the AI operates independently.
Additionally, the legality of training AI on datasets — many scraped from online platforms — remains unclear. India lacks specific legislation around data ownership and licensing, complicating the ethics and legality of AI model development. Without defined norms, the commercial deployment of AI may face future legal hurdles.
The Evolving Landscape: Some Signs of Progress
Legal scholar Dr. Shlomit Yanisky Ravid outlines eight characteristics that give AI the ability to invent and create, such as autonomy, rationality, and communication abilities. These features make it feasible for AI to generate outputs that, if created by humans, would qualify for copyright or patent protection.
While Indian law hasn’t yet addressed these complexities, there are green shoots. NITI Aayog’s draft National AI Strategy recognises the urgency of revisiting IPR regulations to accommodate AI-generated works. Simultaneously, the upcoming Digital India Act aims to include guidelines on data governance and algorithmic responsibility, paving the way for a more adaptive regulatory environment.
Looking globally, several jurisdictions have made strides. The UK’s Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 explicitly protects computer-generated works, assigning authorship to the person who orchestrates the creation. Countries like New Zealand and Ireland have adopted similar provisions.
Where Does the Buck Stop?
AI is not just transforming innovation — it is also raising red flags. Deepfakes, misinformation, and AI art that mimics human styles all underscore the risks of unregulated autonomy. When AI plagiarises or mimics an artist’s work, who’s accountable?
There’s no definitive answer yet. In the absence of AI-specific liability rules, responsibility could fall on developers, users, or intermediaries. Some propose treating AI models akin to hazardous products, assigning liability even without proven intent or negligence. But in India, legal clarity is still missing.
These challenges are not just theoretical. Questions over who trains AI, using whose data, and for what commercial purpose, are already disrupting content, media, and software industries. The Ghibli-style AI images that recently went viral may have delighted viewers, but also sparked debates about authorship and originality.
What to Watch Out For
As AI becomes a foundational tool across sectors, India needs to urgently clarify three areas of IP law:
Ashwini Vaishnaw, Minister, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, has publicly acknowledged the disruptive potential of AI in the creative sector, urging policymakers to protect original creators. Meanwhile, the U.S. Patent Office has issued guidelines requiring proof of human contribution in AI-assisted inventions, and jurisdictions like Japan and Singapore have adopted forward-looking frameworks that allow AI training using copyrighted material — sometimes even for commercial use.
Conclusion
India’s intellectual property regime has long balanced innovation with public interest —most notably in pharmaceutical access through its generic drug provisions. But AI is rewriting the playbook. With applications across every major sector, from healthcare to entertainment, the rules must evolve.
If India truly wants to lead in AI — especially through its “AI for All” mission — it must build a legal framework that protects creators, enables fair access to data, and supports ethical AI training. Only then can the country foster an ecosystem where technology is inclusive, sustainable, and globally competitive.
Related Posts
April 17, 2025
Beyond Borders: How Sanctions Are Redrawing India's Economic Map
April 16, 2025
TikTok vs Tariffs: China’s Guerilla Content War against the U.S.
April 04, 2025
Data Centres as Energy Assets: Key to Energy Security and GDP Growth