Created by AI, Authored by Whom? India’s Copyright Office Weighs In
10 minutes ago
7 min read
With artificial intelligence becoming increasingly involved in the creation of artistic, literary and musical works, the interaction between AI and copyright law continues to raise questions relating to authorship and ownership. While copyright laws across jurisdictions have traditionally been centred around human creativity, the growing ability of AI systems to independently generate creative works has made it necessary to reconsider how the existing principles of copyright law may apply to such works.
The Indian Copyright Office has recently had the opportunity to examine this issue in relation to an artistic work titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, which was created using an artificial intelligence system known as DABUS (“Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience”).
Interestingly, while the Copyright Office recognised that an AI-generated work may satisfy the requirement of originality and consequently be capable of copyright protection, it refused to recognise the AI system itself as the “author” of the work under the Copyright Act, 1957. The decision is particularly significant as it attempts to draw a distinction between the copyrightability of an AI-generated work and the legal recognition of AI as its “author”.
Background
The copyright application was filed in respect of the artistic work A Recent Entrance to Paradise, which had been generated using DABUS, an artificial intelligence system developed by American computer scientist Dr. Stephen Thaler.
In the application, DABUS was named as the author of the artistic work, whereas Dr. Thaler was identified as the owner of the copyright. Dr. Thaler's case was that the final work had been autonomously generated by DABUS without real-time human intervention or a conventional text prompt. However, Dr. Thaler had developed and configured the AI system, provided certain inputs including photographs taken by him, and initiated the process which ultimately resulted in the creation of the work.
The question before the Copyright Office was therefore whether the AI system which generated the final artistic work could itself be recognised as its author.
The Copyright Office answered this question in the negative.
The Indian Position on Computer-Generated Works
Interestingly, the Indian Copyright Act already makes specific provision for computer-generated works. Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the “author” shall mean:
“the person who causes the work to be created.”
The wording of this provision becomes particularly relevant when applied to artificial intelligence. The Copyright Office observed that the immediate generation of the work by an AI system does not necessarily make the AI its author. Instead, it is necessary to identify the person who caused the work to be created.
In the present case, Dr. Thaler had developed and configured DABUS, provided the relevant inputs and initiated the process through which the artwork was ultimately generated. Therefore, although DABUS may have performed the computational process which resulted in the final work, the Copyright Office considered Dr. Thaler to be the person capable of being recognised as its author under the Copyright Act.
The distinction between the person who causes a work to be created and the technology which ultimately generates the work is an important one.
Can an AI-Generated Work Still Be “Original”?
Another interesting aspect of the decision is that the Copyright Office did not reject the possibility of copyright protection merely because the work had been generated through artificial intelligence.
The Copyright Office considered the artistic work to meet the applicable requirement of “originality”. Therefore, the use of an AI system in generating the work did not, in itself, prevent the work from being capable of copyright protection. This gives rise to two separate questions.
First, whether an AI-generated work can satisfy the originality requirement under copyright law; and second, who can legally be recognised as the author of such a work.
The present decision indicates that the involvement of AI does not necessarily answer the first question in the negative. However, under the present statutory framework, the AI system itself cannot satisfy the second.
Therefore, it may be observed that AI-generated works are not necessarily excluded from copyright protection in India merely because of the manner in which they have been created.
The Question of Ownership
Recognising an AI system as an author would also give rise to a further difficulty relating to ownership. Under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the author of a work is generally the first owner of copyright, subject to the exceptions provided under the Act. Copyright may thereafter be assigned in accordance with Sections 18 and 19.
However, an AI system does not presently have a separate legal personality. It cannot own property, enter into contracts or independently assign copyright to another person.
Therefore, if DABUS were recognised as the author while Dr. Thaler was recognised as the copyright owner, there would have to be some legal basis upon which the copyright passed from DABUS to Dr. Thaler.
This perhaps demonstrates one of the larger difficulties with recognising artificial intelligence as an author. Such recognition would not merely require a change in the interpretation of the word “author”, but may also require reconsideration of several connected principles relating to first ownership, assignment, licensing and enforcement of copyright.
The Copyright Office therefore took the view that the question of granting an AI system a separate legal personality or recognising it as an author would essentially be a matter for legislative consideration.
The Earlier RAGHAV Registration
The present decision is also interesting when viewed against India's earlier experience with AI authorship.
In 2020, an artistic work titled Suryast was registered before the Indian Copyright Office with its human creator, Ankit Sahni, and an AI painting application known as RAGHAV being identified as co-authors.
The registration attracted considerable attention as it appeared to recognise an artificial intelligence system as a co-author of a copyrighted work. The Copyright Office subsequently raised concerns regarding the registration, leaving the Indian position on AI authorship somewhat uncertain.
The DABUS decision now provides greater clarity.
Rather than recognising the AI system itself as the author, the Copyright Office has relied upon the existing language of Section 2(d)(vi) and focused upon identifying the person who causes the computer-generated work to be created.
But Who Really “Causes” an AI Work to Be Created?
While the present decision provides some clarity, it perhaps raises another question which may become increasingly relevant with the widespread use of generative AI platforms.
The facts relating to DABUS are relatively distinct. Dr. Thaler developed and configured the AI system and provided the inputs which eventually resulted in the creation of the artistic work.
However, the position may not always be as straightforward.
Where a person merely provides a short prompt to a commercially available generative AI platform, can such person necessarily be considered the person who “causes the work to be created”? Would the position differ where detailed prompts, repeated modifications and substantial human editing are involved? What would be the position where most of the expressive choices appearing in the final work are made by the AI system itself?
The Copyright Act does not presently provide a clear answer to these questions.
Therefore, while Section 2(d)(vi) may provide a useful statutory basis for addressing computer-generated works, the interpretation of the expression “the person who causes the work to be created” may itself become the subject of considerable debate as generative AI systems become increasingly autonomous.
Conclusion
The decision of the Copyright Office is a significant development in the evolving relationship between artificial intelligence and copyright law in India.
It clarifies, at least for the present, that an AI system cannot itself be recognised as an author under the Copyright Act. At the same time, the decision does not exclude AI-generated works from copyright protection altogether. A work generated using artificial intelligence may still satisfy the requirement of originality, provided that authorship can be attributed in accordance with the existing statutory framework.
It may therefore be observed that the present position attempts to strike a balance between technological development and the traditional principles of copyright law. Artificial intelligence may increasingly participate in the process of creation, but the law continues to look for a legally recognised person behind that creation.
However, this may not be the end of the debate. As AI systems become more sophisticated and increasingly capable of producing works with minimal human involvement, determining who actually “causes” a work to be created may become considerably more complicated. Perhaps, the larger question for copyright law will no longer be whether artificial intelligence is capable of creating an original work, but how much human involvement is necessary before a person can claim authorship over what the machine has created.
It remains to be seen whether the existing provisions of the Copyright Act will be flexible enough to answer this question, or whether the increasing autonomy of artificial intelligence will eventually call for legislative intervention.
Vrinda Sehgal
Associate
References
In re: “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”, Diary No. 9356/2022-CO/A, Registrar of Copyrights, Copyright Office, New Delhi, Order dated 31 August 2026
Vrinda Sehgal, “Products of Artificial Intelligence Making Their Way to Protection Under Copyright Law?”, Chadha & Chadha Intellectual Property Law Firm, 2021. Available at:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=32eee40e-576c-43c2-a8c1-5f749360c482
Bar & Bench, “AI-generated work can get copyright but AI system cannot be author: Indian Copyright Office”, 31 August 2026. Available at:
SCC Times, “Copyright Office: AI System Cannot Be an ‘Author’; Authorship is a Legislative Prerogative”, 1 September 2026. Available at:
Copyright Office, Government of India, New Applications – May 2022, recording A Recent Entrance to Paradise, Diary No. 9356/2022-CO/A, filed by Stephen L. Thaler on 3 May 2022. Available at:
https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/New_Applications/New_Applications_May_2022.pdf
The Copyright Act, 1957, particularly Sections 2(d)(vi), 13, 17, 18 and 19. Copyright Office, Government of India. Available at:
Managing IP, “Exclusive: India recognises AI as co-author of copyrighted artwork”, concerning Ankit Sahni, RAGHAV and the artistic work Suryast. Available at:
National e-Governance Division (NeGD), Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India, “AI & Copyright in India: Bridging the Digital Divide”, discussing AI-generated works and the RAGHAV/Suryast registration. Available at:
The Indian Express, “AI can create original work but can’t be its author: India’s copyright ruling explained”, 1 September 2026. Available at:
Comments