Sumanta Ghosh
ABSTRACT
Artificial Intelligence is no longer only a technical tool; it is now entering the space of creativity which was once thought to be exclusively human. In music, painting, literature or film, AI systems are producing works that are difficult to separate from human imagination. This creates a dilemma for copyright law, which has always assumed that a work must come from a human author to deserve protection. The issue becomes even more complex when artists realise that their original works are being used as training material for AI without permission. This research tries to examine these challenges by focusing mainly on copyright and creative rights of artists in the Indian legal framework, with references to global developments. The paper relies on doctrinal analysis of statutes, judicial decisions and scholarly writings, and also makes a comparative study of other jurisdictions like US, UK and EU. The study finds that while AI opens opportunities, it also threatens to weaken the recognition and livelihood of artists if the law does not adapt. Suggestions are offered for reforming copyright law, developing licensing systems for training data, and creating awareness for artists. The central aim of the paper is to highlight the urgent need for balance between innovation and the protection of human creativity in the AI era.
KEYWORDS
AI, Copyright, Creative Rights, Intellectual Property, Artists, Legal Challenges
INTRODUCTION
Artificial Intelligence is reshaping almost every part of our lives, and art hasn’t been left out. From music created by algorithms to digital artworks, it’s getting harder to tell where human imagination ends and machine output begins. For centuries the artists have relied on their experiences and personal perspectives to create works that convey their emotions and identity. Today AI systems can produce music, paintings and literary pieces just in seconds which often imitate human styles with surprising accuracy. This rapid development raises important questions like if machines can replicate or even enhance human creativity, who should receive the credit and recognition traditionally reserved for artists? And as technology moves so quickly, how can laws keep up to address these new challenges?
Copyright is one of the crucial parts of intellectual property protection which was historically designed to safeguard human creativity and granting creators exclusive rights also encouraging cultural growth but AI challenges this premise as most legal systems require human authorship to assign copyright. If a machine composes music based on thousands of existing works or produces a painting trained on numerous human artworks then does the ownership belong to the AI developer, the AI itself or no one at all? Beyond legal considerations there is an ethical question which also arises like should artists retain moral rights over works that influence AI outputs and could AI generated creations undermine the recognition, livelihoods and cultural contributions of human creators?
In India the existing laws such as the Copyright Act 1957 were never drafted in a way which can stand against current dilemmas which leaves courts and policymakers to grapple with cases demanding clarity. Internationally some jurisdictions cautiously extend limited protection to AI assisted works, while others maintain strict adherence to human authorship. This paper tries to examine these challenges comprehensively with exploring the impact of AI on creative rights and the limitations of current legal frameworks, and the ethical considerations for artists whose works may be used without consent. By analysing both global trends and the Indian context, this study aims to highlight legal gaps and propose solutions that balance technological advancement with the protection of human creativity.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This paper takes a doctrinal and analytical research approach, traditionally employed by legal research to study statutes, judicial statements, and learned opinions. The study is aimed at comprehending the legal quandaries of artists during the era of Artificial Intelligence, more so in terms of copyright and creative rights. Primary sources involve Indian laws like the Copyright Act, 19572, the amendments applicable, and the current controversies revolving around AI-created works. Further, international frameworks, including the Berne Convention, WIPO guidelines, the US Copyright Office decisions, and EU AI and copyright directives, have been examined to enable a comparative understanding. Secondary sources encompass peer-reviewed journal articles, books, research papers, news reports, and case studies pointing out the issues presented by AI-generated works on human authorship, originality, and moral rights. These sources have been reviewed critically to determine trends, gaps, and possible solutions. The paper also includes case study analysis of actual instances where AI-generated products created issues in copyright enforcement and creative authorship. The study takes a qualitative approach, interpreting legal provisions, analysing judicial reasoning, and assessing policy frameworks to formulate recommendations for enhancing the protection of artists’ rights. This approach ensures that the understanding is complete at the intersection of law, technology, and creativity and that the proposals are based both on legal principles and emerging challenges brought by Artificial Intelligence.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The relation between copyright law and artistic creativity has long been a subject of debate but the entry of Artificial Intelligence into the field of art and cultural production has expanded this debate into another dimension of uncertainty. In the Indian context the discussion is still growing and evolving though parallels can be drawn from international developments. A review of literature reveals a pattern of scholarship that highlights the lack of clarity in existing laws with the philosophical dilemma of authorship and the need for reform to safeguard artistic communities. Indian scholarship first began addressing the issue of authorship in the digital age through the lens of the Copyright Act2 1957. According to legal commentators such as N. S. Gopalakrishnan and T. G. Agitha, the Act primarily envisions human authorship and originality as the foundation of copyright protection. The emphasis is on the intellectual labour of an individual creator, not on outputs generated through autonomous computational processes. Scholars argue that while the Act does extend protection to “computer generated works” the provision (Section 2(d)) leaves ambiguity regarding whether AI can be regarded as an author in its own right or whether the programmer, the user or a corporation commissioning the work can lay claim to authorship. This ambiguity has been highlighted in several commentaries within Indian law journals. For instance, Prashant Reddy T in his discussions on intellectual property law points out that Indian jurisprudence is silent on the recognition of non-human creators. The position has been further complicated by less judicial precedents. Unlike the United States where cases such as Thaler v USPTO have ignited a debate on whether an AI system can be listed as an inventor or author, Indian courts have yet to address the question directly. Scholars argue that this absence of case law has left creators are uncertain about their rights when competing against an AI generated work that nearly replicate their style. From another perspective of literature from the European Union and the United Kingdom provides an insight. Indian scholars such as Shamnad Basheer have cited this model while suggesting reforms in Indian law. However, the critics argue that such provisions may resolve technical authorship issues which may tilt the balance in favour of corporations and programmers while leaving artists vulnerable. In addition to statutory interpretation and scholars have also highlighted the socio-economic dimensions of the dilemma. A study published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights observes that Indian artists particularly in the fields of music, digital design and visual arts face the risk of economic displacement when AI generated content floods the market at a cheaper cost. The literature stresses that copyright is not merely a legal mechanism but also an economic safety for artists whose lives are depend on their artistic works.
At the philosophical level and academics such as Lawrence Liang and Sudhir Krishnaswamy have examined the cultural implications of allowing non-human entities to be recognized as authors. Their writings suggest that Indian copyright law has always been tied to the broader question of protecting human dignity and labour and granting authorship to AI and they argue risks undermining the very foundation of copyright, which is premised on human creativity. This view matches the traditional Indian perspective that art is not only a commodity but also an expression of individual and their cultural identity. Yet the international contributions to the literature caution against adopting a purely restrictive stance. Authors like Pamela Samuelson and Reto Hilty point out that AI tools are increasingly integrated into artistic processes so the law must learn to differentiate between AI as a tool and autonomous creator. Indian scholars referencing these works suggest that the challenge lies not in outrightly rejecting AI’s role but creating policies that protect human artists while recognizing the growing hybrid nature of creativity.
In summary the review of literature highlights three key themes
(1) Indian copyright law’s current framework is not properly developed to address the complexities of AI generated creativity.
(2) comparative legal systems offer useful but limited and imperfect models.
(3) Indian scholarship stresses the need to safeguard human artists legally and economically while engaging with international discourse to remain relevant in a globalized creative market.
METHOD
The present research has taken the way of a qualitative and doctrinal methodology to examine the legal dilemmas faced by artists in the age of artificial intelligence. The study relies primarily on the analysis of existing laws, judicial pronouncements, academic commentary, and policy papers dealing with copyright and creative rights in India, while also incorporating relevant international perspectives for a comparative understanding. The doctrinal approach has been chosen because the issue of authorship and ownership in AI generated contents are still unsettled in India with no direct statutory provision or binding precedent. Therefore, the research focuses on interpreting the Copyright Act 19572 related intellectual property laws and secondary sources such as law review articles, scholarly books and commentaries. These sources are examined to understand how traditional concepts of originality, creativity and ownership might be applied or challenged when AI enters the artistic field. Alongside doctrinal analysis the research uses a comparative lens by briefly examining how jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom and European Union have approached similar dilemmas. This is not for the purpose of transplanting foreign law into India but rather to assess which principles could be adapted to the Indian context with given India’s unique socio legal framework and the importance of cultural and artistic rights under the Constitution. To make the inquiry more comprehensive, the study also considers policy documents, white papers and reports from international organizations like the World Intellectual Property Organizations4 and UNESCO. These materials help in identifying possible policy pathways India could adopt while balancing the interests of artists, AI developers and the larger creative economy. This method is exploratory rather than empirical. While interviews or surveys with artists and creators could add valuable insight also the primary aim of this paper is to provide a legal theoretical foundation for understanding the copyright challenges posed by AI in India. The method therefore focuses on a critical examination of texts rather than quantitative data. Through this approach is the research attempts to highlight gaps in Indian copyright law but also analyse the potential conflicts between existing statutes and new realities which suggest reforms that can safeguard the rights of artists without stifling innovation in AI technologies.
To complement the doctrinal approach this study incorporates some ongoing and landmark judicial developments:
• ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI OPCO LLC 2024
India’s first major generative AI copyright dispute. ANI alleges that OpenAI had used its proprietary news content including paywalled material to train ChatGPT without any authorization. The Court is examining whether such use infringes Sections 14 and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and whether it can be justified under Section 52 as fair dealing also whether Indian courts have jurisdiction despite OpenAI’s overseas operations. Both parties have filed their arguments and hearings are ongoing. No final judgment has been delivered as of August 2025. This case highlights the current uncertainty surrounding AI generated content and human authorship in Indian law.
SUGGESTIONS
The challenges posed by artificial intelligence to the creative sector demand new and forward-looking reforms. Protecting the rights of artists in this digital age cannot depend only on existing copyright laws, which were drafted in a time when human authorship was the unquestioned norm. To ensure that artistic labour is respected while technological progress is also not put on hold the following suggestions can be considered:
Clearer Legal Definitions of Authorship
Indian copyright law currently assumes human creativity at its core. However, with AI now capable of generating art, music, and literature, legislators need to define where human authorship begins and ends. One suggestion is to adopt a hybrid model, where recognition is given to both the programmer or dataset curator and the human artist who modifies or directs the AI’s output. This approach can prevent disputes over ownership while ensuring that credit is not left in a legal vacuum.
Introducing a “Creative Contribution” Test
Instead of focusing solely on the originality standard, India could introduce a “creative contribution” test that measures the degree of human involvement in AI-assisted works. If an artist uses AI as a tool to support their vision, the final product should still be protected under copyright. Conversely, purely machine-generated outputs with no meaningful human intervention could be excluded from the scope of copyright, while still being regulated under alternative frameworks.
Building a Licensing Framework for Training Data
Many AI systems are trained using vast libraries of copyrighted material without the knowledge or consent of artists. India could develop a licensing system where AI developers are required to pay for the use of copyrighted datasets. This not only safeguards artistic rights but also creates a revenue model for artists whose works indirectly fuel AI creativity. Lessons can be drawn from the European Union’s approach under the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.
Awareness and Education for Artists
A large part of the problem lies in the lack of awareness among Indian artists on how the AI operates and how their works may be used. Government bodies, art councils, and universities can introduce training programs to help creators for understanding both the risks and benefits of AI technologies. Awareness campaigns will empower artists to negotiate better contracts and demand transparency from AI developers.
Creation of Specialized Tribunal for only AI Related Disputes
As the nature of these conflicts are highly technical that it may be wise to establish a separate tribunal or an expert committee under the Intellectual Property Appellate Board to solve the cases involving AI generated works. This would ensure quicker resolution of disputes while also preventing overburdening of regular courts with technologically complex cases.
Encouraging the Ethical AI Development
While the law must play its part but the responsibility also lies with AI developers and corporations. India can adopt ethical guidelines which demands transparency in AI systems to disclosure of datasets that which are being used to train their model and provide safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of artistic works. This would create a more balanced and secure ecosystem where both AI creation and artistic integrity are valued.
International Collaboration
Since AI driven creativity is a global phenomenon, India cannot address it in isolation. The active participation in international forums such as the World Intellectual Property Organization4 can help to shape the consistent global standards. Aligning domestic law with emerging international practices will prevent loopholes to make Indian artists will have a safe guard globally.
CONCLUSION
From the discussion it becomes clear that the rise of Artificial Intelligence has pushed copyright law into a corner it was not prepared for. Existing Indian laws like the Copyright Act2 1957 were framed in a time when the author was always assumed to be human, and so they do not have a clear answer for AI generated works. Internationally also, the debate is unsettled, with some jurisdictions giving limited recognition to AI-assisted works and others sticking firmly to human authorship. What is common however is the growing recognition that artists must not be left unprotected when their works are reused to train machines or when their cultural identity gets blurred under AI’s imitation. The paper suggests that India should not wait for a crisis before acting. Clearer rules on authorship, licensing frameworks for data, and awareness programs for artists are needed urgently. At the same time, law should not suppress technological progress but should encourage ethical and fair use of AI in creativity. To put it simple, copyright in the age of AI is not just about protecting works, but about protecting the dignity and survival of human creators in a fast-changing digital world.
Sumanta Ghosh
JIS University, Kolkata
Reference
- Introduction & Core Legal Framework
- Copyright Act 1957, Section 2(d) (India)
- National Seminar on Cyber Law & IPR (2017) – discussion on human authorship
- Berne Convention (1886) – foundational treaty on protection of authors
- Indian Legal Scholarship
- Gopalakrishnan, N. S., & Agitha, T. G., Commentaries on the Copyright Act, 1957 (2015)
- Reddy, Prashant, About authorship and non-human creators in Indian Journal of IPR Studies (2019)
- Basheer, Shamnad, Proposed Copyright Reforms for the Digital Age (2020)
- Liang, Lawrence, & Krishnaswamy, Sudhir, Cultural Dimensions of Authorship in India (2021, Cultural Sociology Review)
- Indian Case Law
- ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI OPCO LLC, Delhi High Court, Filed: 19 November 2024, Ongoing as of 17 August 2025.
- International & Comparative Perspectives
- Thaler v. USPTO, United States (2022) – AI as “inventor/author” debate
- Samuelson, Pamela, AI Tools vs. Human Creativity: A Legal Balance (2022, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology)
- Hilty, Reto, Copyright and AI: Principal Challenges (2021, European Intellectual Property Review)
- WIPO Teaching Tool on Copyright for AI (2023)
- EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (2019)
- EU AI Act (proposal, 2021–2024)
- Socio-Economic & Philosophical Dimensions
- Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (India), “AI Threats to Artistic Livelihoods” (2022)
- UNESCO Policy Guidelines on AI & Creativity (2022)