The Evolving Jurisprudence of Copyright in AI-Generated Works

Both artistic and technical information have been transforming lately about how to create in all industries. From very complicated paintings to writing symphonies and developing entire novels, it is just incredible how AI-derived tools such as DALL·E or DeepDream of Google and ChatGPT can be extremely good at showing just how wide this fantastic world of human creativity can go. However, this gives a grand legal question: who has the right to copyright AI-created works?

Control of origin laws mediated by authors has traditionally attempted a simpler approach that did not anticipate complexities associated with human creativity. This was the paradigm in the understanding of royalty relating to the creation, wherein, as the literature shows, authorship has to fall to human action and labour. Upon independent and less human intervention by a machine in making the work, one expects a built-in gap in the legal design. This has to do with the application of copyright to works made through AI. Blog sought to study global moves or court cases that have taken place regarding uses of copyright in made-always-with-an-AI creation and provide discussion over possible solutions to the future of intellectual property laws.

Traditional Copyright Framework and Its Limitations

Copyright law is fundamentally based on three principles:

1. Authorship: The creator of a work owns the copyright.
2. Originality: A work must exhibit a degree of intellectual effort and creativity to be protected.
3. Fixation: To qualify for copyright protection, the work must be recorded in a tangible medium.

Certain laws, like the Berne Treaty, which has been ratified by most countries, imply that the author is human. One aspect regarding the laws that govern copyright is that in the United States alone the copyright is only given by law to works that are created by human beings. This position was reiterated through several decisions, the most significant ruling for an export artwork was by the U.S. Copyright Office. The article was rejected for copyright protection in 2023, and the argument was that the absence of human authorship disqualified the work from the right.

Alternatively, the authorities have also seen it fit to plug this hole. The Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 of the United Kingdom, for instance, acknowledges computer-generated works; it defines the “author” as a person who makes the necessary arrangements for creating the work. Such a general approach can lead to practical difficulties, though because it raises the issue of how the claim might be implemented and when, exactly, whether the programmer, user, or other person should own the copyright.

China, on the other hand, has taken a proactive stance with its courts recognizing the copyrighted work created by the AI under specified conditions. A first-of-its-kind decision in 2020 proclaimed the copyright of the article generated by Tencent’s Dreamwriter software, the majority opinion was decided on the basis that the software operates under human direction. This decision manifests the country’s readiness to bring about legal modifications to incorporate modern technological changes and enhance AI innovation.

Global Case Studies and Legal Precedents

Naruto v. Slater (Monkey Selfie Case)

The most often cited case in the discussion/issue of non-human authors. A photographer’s camera was used by a monkey named Naruto to take a selfie. It was ruled by the Ninth Circuit Court that animals are not the owners of copyrights since the U.S. Copyright Act regulates the works which are created by humans only. Although the case does not directly involve AI, it sets a precedent that non-human entities cannot be recognized as authors under existing copyright law.

Thaler v. Copyright Office (AI-Generated Art)

In 2023, Dr. Stephen Thaler, the author of an AI system named “Creativity Machine,” applied for a copyright for an art piece produced by the AI. However, the U.S. Copyright Office dismissed the claim, arguing that the existence of a human being behind the invention is a precondition for copyright. This ruling poses the legal principle that computer-created arts, without the involvement of human creativity in their production, are not a copyright under U.S. law.

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Guidelines

The EU has been passive in its approach to AI-generated works. Now recent information has been disclosed that EUIPO turned down IP Protection of an AI-created music piece because it had no human input in the process of creating it. Therefore, the EU’s Copyright Directive allows member states to investigate the possibility of creating AI-generated content frameworks that are responsive to the constantly changing creative landscape.

China’s Recognition of AI-Generated Works

The main hinge of this case is China opening up to AI output, specifically the Dreamwriter episode, which marks the country taking a more efficient step for the day. This judgment gives credit to a human being for work done by a human-aided AI.

We are part of a broader strategy by which China intends to seize its position as a global leader in that area of AI development. Previously, the book used to be seen in the name of the program emcee, but now, it is the opposite of that trend in America, where stricter regulations would appear to come into play.

Challenges in Copyrighting AI-Generated Works

Authorship Dilemmas

One of the most fundamental challenges is the question of authorship. Who owns the right to copy-authors, the programmer, the user, or the transmitter commissioning the work? Assigning authorship in cases of autonomous AI raises its problems, too. For instance, in the case of, for example, when AI generation opens up a dialogue among developers and fosters them into speaking with one another over a certain portion of photo editing in new media spaces, it can also go into the generation of new occupations. Where a system is purely AI-driven like ChatGPT, which would be able to come up with a creative new poem or a piece without substantial input from a user, there isn’t a ‘who is the author?’ candidate.

Originality and Creativity

An equally serious issue is whether the work is original. Many copyright systems require that the work must be original, a reflection of one’s intellectual effort. The viewpoint shared by critics is that the present systems of artificial intelligence predominantly “mess” with existing data patterns without actually generating anything innovative. AI-generated artworks, such as the ones generated by DALL·E, bring data from big databases of existing pictures, and it raises the question of whether these works meet the originality requirement.

Potential for Copyright Infringement

The significant challenge created when AI systems are trained on copyrighted content is found when they accidentally copy parts of old works into new ones and, in turn, generate infringement. An example could be cited from the statement of the U.S. Copyright Office: Outputs created by AI could resemble copyrighted works, leading to potential disputes. The gaming sector faced such an outbreak in recent years as AI tools, which were trained on fan-created content, sparked the consent and fair use debate.

The Indian Context

The Indian Copyright Act of 1957 does not explicitly provide for AI-generated works; however, it considers authorship under Section 2(d)(vi) if the work has been produced under the direction or control of a person. , even though the law can theoretically include AI-generated works, it has not yet been applied by Indian courts to clarify this area.

The absence of legal guidelines has become more likely for businesses, startups, and creative industries in a way that might affect India as a global hub of AI innovation. For example, in many Bollywood films, visual effects and script writing contain AI which brings up the issues of ownership and copyright protection. Policymakers need to move ahead and fill these gaps by providing a legal framework for AI-generated works.

Policy Recommendations

To address the complexities of AI-generated works, governments and international bodies should consider the following:

1. Copyright laws in force are to be policed sending AI-made parts and changing rules. For instance, authorship would be ascribed to whoever conceived the inputs or the AI that generated the output.
2. Forming Exclusive Rights A sui generis intellectual property system based on AI-generated works might provide some degree of protection and also be a bridge to the public domain. This way of doing this would on one hand safeguard innovation and creativity, on the other – would not contradict traditional copyright schemes.
3. Forming International Standards Collaboration among countries, represented by organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), could be the way to go in their attempts to standardize copyright laws for AI-created works, which, in turn, could bring about consistency in the domain.
4. Promoting Ethical AI Practices A well-organized set of training data for AI with all-of-the-spatial-computing should be declared so that no copyright would be infringed. Sources should be disclosed by the programmers of the training data and obtain suitable licenses where needed.

The increase in AI-generated productions has come to a head, and the roots of copyright law are being undermined. This has caused courts and policymakers around the world to start reflecting on old conceptions about authenticity and authorship. Although some authorities have taken the first steps to confront these problems, the complete absence of a global consensus is still in effect. India, in particular, needs to be fast in giving answers to the legal status of AI-generated works. Lawmakers can make sure that copyright law does not fall behind technological advancement by following the creative ideas of future laws and AI ethics. Through joint interaction, innovation and professional integrity rights complement each other, thus humanity and machines can exercise their creativity in mutual respect.

Author: Sakkcham Singh Parmaar, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to [email protected] or at IIPRD. 

References

1. U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of Copyright Office Practices, 2023.
2. Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).
3. Thaler v. Copyright Office, 2023.
4. UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act, 1988.
5. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Guidelines, 2023.
6. Cassels. US Court Decides There is No Copyright in AI-Generated Works, 2023.
7. Baker McKenzie. China: A Landmark Court Ruling on Copyright Protection for AI-generated works, 2024.
8. Wired. Meta Secretly Trained Its AI on a Notorious Piracy Database, 2025.
9. Federal Register. Copyright Registration Guidance for AI-Generated Works, 2023.
10. U.S. Copyright Office. Court Finds AI-Generated Work Is Not Copyrightable, 2023.
11. Wired. Meta Secretly Trained Its AI on a Notorious Piracy Database, Newly Unredacted Court Docs Reveal, 2025.
12. Polygon. AI Dungeon Master experiment exposes the vulnerability of Critical Role’s fandom, 2025.