Navigating AI-Generated Works and Intellectual Property Rights in India: Legal Challenges on Authorship and Inventorship

Answer first: The rapid evolution of generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems, especially Large Language Models, challenges traditional Indian intellectual property frameworks. This article explores the legal complexities surrounding AI-generated works under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Patents Act, 1970, focusing on aut…

Patents context for IP teams

The advent of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed AI from a mere automation tool into a creator of complex text, images, music, software, and other creative outputs. Particularly, Large Language Models (LLMs) can autonomously generate sophisticated works in response to human prompts, raising novel questions at the intersection of technology and intellectual property rights (IPR).

In India, the growing deployment of AI challenges foundational assumptions in IP law, which traditionally presupposes human creativity and inventorship. Copyright law associates authorship with human creators, while patent law recognizes human inventors. AI-generated works therefore provoke critical inquiries about who qualifies as the author, who owns the resulting rights, and whether AI systems themselves can hold intellectual property rights.

Key takeaways for AI-generated works intellectual property India

• Confirm how the development affects patents ownership, enforcement, licensing, or portfolio records.
• Separate confirmed facts from legal interpretation before advising business teams.
• Map deadlines, affected assets, contracts, and evidence files to the responsible internal owner.
• Use the issue as a prompt for monitoring, filing strategy, dispute preparation, or member education.

Practical analysis

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, addresses computer-generated works in Section 2(d)(vi), defining the "author" of such works as the person who causes the work to be created. This provision offers a starting point for analyzing AI-generated content but leaves open complex questions about the extent of human involvement required when generative AI operates with increasing autonomy.

This article examines the legal position of AI-generated works in India, focusing on authorship and ownership issues, with particular attention to the ongoing ANI v. OpenAI dispute. It also explores the emerging dilemma of AI inventorship in patent law and the need to balance technological innovation with the protection of legitimate intellectual property rights.

AI-generated works encompass literary, artistic, musical, or other creative outputs produced through AI systems. A key distinction exists between AI-assisted works, where humans substantially direct, select, edit, or refine the output, and fully AI-generated works, where the AI system independently produces the substantive expression with minimal human creative input.

In copyright law, questions of originality, authorship, and ownership are paramount. When a human uses AI as a sophisticated tool and contributes meaningful creative choices, the human creator can more readily be recognized as the author. However, when AI independently determines significant elements of the final work, identifying a legally recognized author becomes challenging. Indian law thus grapples with whether the AI developer, the prompt provider, or another individual exercising creative control qualifies as the person who "causes" the work to be created.

The patent law dimension extends these challenges. AI systems increasingly generate technical solutions and inventions, prompting debate over whether AI can be recognized as an inventor. The Indian Patent Office’s recent decision rejecting the designation of the AI system DABUS as an inventor underscores the prevailing human-centered approach. This decision reflects that current Indian patent law does not recognize AI as an inventor, highlighting a fundamental tension as AI performs inventive functions while legal rights remain tied to human inventorship.

The Copyright Act’s definition of "author" in Section 2(d)(vi) is particularly significant for generative AI, as it does not recognize AI systems as authors but instead identifies a human or legal person connected with the creation. This framework provides some protection for computer-generated works but leaves unresolved how much human involvement is necessary when AI produces the substantive creative expression.

Additionally, the Copyright Act’s Section 52 outlines exceptions to copyright infringement, including fair dealing for private use, research, criticism, review, and reporting current events. It also permits storing works electronically for these purposes. The interpretation of these exceptions in the context of large-scale AI training data has become a critical legal issue, especially in the ANI v. OpenAI dispute, which questions whether AI training on copyrighted material falls within these statutory exceptions.

The Patents Act, 1970, governs patent protection in India and requires that patent applications be made by the true and first inventor or their assignee. This human-centric requirement complicates the recognition of AI as an inventor, as reflected in the rejection of AI inventorship claims such as those involving DABUS.

Together, these legal frameworks reveal the challenges posed by AI-generated works and inventions. While AI systems increasingly perform creative and inventive functions, Indian intellectual property law remains grounded in human authorship and inventorship concepts. The evolving technological landscape necessitates a careful balancing act to protect innovation while respecting established IP rights.

The ANI v. OpenAI dispute and the Indian DABUS patent decision exemplify the pressing need for legal clarity on AI’s role in authorship and inventorship. As AI continues to advance, Indian IP law faces the task of adapting to these emerging realities without undermining the rights of human creators and inventors.

In conclusion, the intersection of AI and intellectual property in India presents complex legal challenges. The current statutory provisions provide a foundation but leave significant questions unanswered regarding the extent of human involvement required for authorship and inventorship. Ongoing disputes and decisions highlight the urgency of developing a nuanced legal framework that accommodates AI’s creative capabilities while safeguarding the legitimate rights of human IP holders.

Related IIPLA reading

• Latest IP news
• IP resources library
• IP guide
• IIPLA events and webinars