Redefining Copyright Authorship and Ownership: Legal Challenges of AI-Generated Content in Cinematic Productions

Paper Details 

Paper Code: RP-VBCL-03-2025

Category: Research Paper

Date of Publication: April 20, 2025

Citation: Ms. Gaurika Sharma & Dr. Chandrika Setu Sharma, “Redefining Copyright Authorship and Ownership: Legal Challenges of AI-Generated Content in Cinematic Productions", 2, AIJVBCL, 22, 22-38 (2025),

Author Details: Ms. Gaurika Sharma, Ph.D. Scholar, School of Law and Jurisprudence, Shri Venkateshwara University, Gajraula, Uttar Pradesh &

Dr. Chandrika Setu Sharma, Asst. Prof & Ph.D. Supervisor, School of Law and Jurisprudence, Shri Venkateshwara University, Gajraula, Uttar Pradesh

Download PDF

ABSTRACT

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies have grown quickly in the recent times and are now used in many different industries. The Indian film and music industry has seen a particular revolutionary application of AI. Even if AI's application in various domains shows how much it may improve society, its advancement presents grave moral and legal issues, especially when it comes to exploiting copyrighted content without permission. Numerous AI firms use creative works from third parties, including books, movies, theatres, plays and other artwork, without obtaining permission from the original copyright holders. This conduct jeopardizes the integrity of the film business in addition to undermining the rights of the original creators and producers of the work. This research paper critically evaluates the copyright laws in India that deal with AI and are working for the protection of creativity as well as morale of the authors. This research paper evaluates the suitability of these laws and emphasizes how urgently more legal safeguards are required to protect creators and preserve the moral bounds of AI research, not only in India but at a global level. This paper would also focus on international protection standards of intellectual property rights when it comes to protection and framing of policies regarding AI. 

Keywords- Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Cinematographic Films, Music, Policy-making

INTRODUCTION

From a specialized technology, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has quickly developed into a vital part of many creative processes. Earlier the use of AI was only limited to data analysis in the IT industry but now it has developed into a crucial instrument for creators as well. It has started affecting and contributing in literature, music, art, and other creative fields which were earlier only a fruit of human labour. The legal frameworks supporting AI must be critically re-evaluated in light of this major technological shift, especially from the point of view of intellectual property rights. Copyright laws have been a major framework for guidance and policy making of creativity in the world, hence AI’s role in fostering creativity and navigating the intricate effects of technological change on authors shall also be dealt by Copyright laws only.

Writing screenplays for movies has its origins in the old-fashioned pen-to-paper technique. Scripts were handwritten or typed by the screenwriters which was a laboriously complicated and slow process. The physical strain was likely the most evident; endless sheets of paper, arm-aching editing, and having to rewrite entire scenes or dialogues. However, these challenges also fostered innovation, resulting in some of the most recognizable movies ever made not only in India but at a global level. Now this work can be done within a few minutes with AI and it shall become a huge issue in the upcoming era.

AI is growing, as seen by the emergence of deepfake technology and its application in script generation. With funding from a Google grant and assistance from human journalists, a national news agency will use robots to produce up to 30,000 local news pieces per month. A grant of €706,000 (£621,000) has been awarded to the Press Association to operate a news service that uses computers to produce localized news articles. [1]

The maker of the famous ‘Death of an Author’ has explicity stated that AI has been behind its creative process upto 95%.[2] Evan Halleck, the visual effects artist for "Everything Everywhere All at Once," used advanced AI technologies from Runway, like the green screen tool that eliminates the backdrop from photos, when he was working on the rock universe scenario. He states, "It provided me with a clean mat that I could utilize for other purposes, and it was eliminating objects more effectively than my human eye could."[3]After being trained on massive internet datasets, AI models like Chat-GPT may produce material that closely resembles human writing. AI programs like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion are capable of producing intricate visual artworks from straightforward text instructions significantly more quickly and effectively than humans.

AIgenerated creativity usually requires little or negligible involvementfrom people who may not have artistic training, in contrast to traditional digital art, which necessitates substantial human creative input.Filmmakers can now create breathtaking and realistic scenes that were previously thought to be unachievable of such tools, which has drastically changed the visual effects (VFX) business. For example, AI-driven technologies were utilized to animate and bring to life complex characters on the big screen in films like "Avengers: Endgame" and "The Lion King".

The scriptwriting stage is where AI first enters the film industry. Natural language processing is used by programs like ScriptBook to evaluate screenplays, forecast box office performance, and provide narrative and character development insights. For example, 20th Century Fox used AI to evaluate Logan's script, which aided in the decision-making process about the film's themes and plot. Warner Bros. and Cinelytic collaborated to employ AI in casting choices, assessing an actor's market value to forecast a movie's box office performance. With its increased creative freedom and lower production costs, this technology has the potential to completely transform the filmmaking process.  [4]

It is pertinent to examine how Copyright law shall handle the issues raised due to using of creative works without permission of the authors as the world becomes more and more integrated into the global AI ecosystem. Furthermore, it requires a more thorough research into whether the rights of creators are adequately protected by the current Copyright law or whether additional legal amendments are required to handle these difficulties posed by AI.

INFLUENCE OF AI IN THE INDIAN FILM AND MUSIC INDUSTRY-

Indian film industry is not an exception to the way AI has become a disruptive force that is transforming several industries worldwide. India is known for the creation of creative content because of its enormous talent pool and rich cultural legacy. Nonetheless, the incorporation of AI technologies has offered new opportunities and revolutionized the nation's content production, distribution, and consumption practices.

In the year 2021, an advertising campaign featuring Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan has been released by the brand Cadbury which allowed local store owners to make a free advertisement for their establishments that features Shah Rukh Khan by using his original voice and style with the help of AI.[5] Mr. Khan has been the first actor in the industry to have worked together with AI at an advertising level.On one hand where Mr. Khan has given his voice to AI, on the other hand veteran actor Anil Kapoor has fought for his personality rights in the Delhi High Court due to the fear of AI. The court heard his concerns on the improper use of AI technology to leverage his voice, picture, and identity for profit without getting his permission. His argument was supported by a number of Indian legal provisions that deal with matters pertaining to privacy, intellectual property rights, and the defence of one's name and character. He was given the relief that he sought by Justice Pratibha M. Singh.[6]It is evident that copyright law does not specifically address the duplication of one's personality through AI, therefore Mr. Kapoor had to approach the Court in advance as a precaution to limit the use of his name, voice, appearance and famous dialogues.

Indian artist Raghava KK in partnership with material scientist Ben Tritt, neuroscientist AbhijeetSatani and AI artist Harshit Agrawal have produced a work together which is known as ‘The Orgasm Project’. A digital file was combined with a tangible piece of art that represented data and a visual representation of the human brain during an orgasm in this piece that combined digital and artificial intelligence capabilities. Raghava continued this research in 2022 with the introduction of Cyborg Desires, a project that was also powered by AI.[7] Such works are an example of creativity where partial human work and partial AI work has started to originate in India.

While the industry has two different aspects regarding artificial intelligence, the Indian Courts have taken certain strict decisions when it comes to Copyright Law. The Delhi high Court in the case of Rupendra Kashyap v Jiwan Publishing House Pvt.[8] Ltdhas clearly stated that only a natural person can hold a Copyright in India and any artificial person shall not be allowed to do the same.

But in 2020, the Indian Copyright Office acknowledged Raghav, an AI tool, and its creator as the authors of a piece of art it created. This acknowledgment represented a substantial shift from the conventional understanding of authorship. However, the Copyright Office then sent out a withdrawal notice, stating that the applicant was ultimately responsible for informing the office of the AI tool's legal status.[9]

This uncertainty surrounding AI authorship and ownership presents significant obstacles for companies looking to safeguard their original creativity. How AI-generated content can be properly acknowledged and safeguarded under copyright law is still subject to interpretation of the legislature and the judiciary of India.

COMPLEXITIES AND LACK IN THE INDIAN COPYRIGHT LAW-

The emergence of AI-generated art has sparked heated discussion, especially in relation to its moral and legal implications for intellectual property rights. Examining how Indian copyright law handles the difficulties presented by AI is a crucial issue as India becomes more and more integrated into the global AI ecosystem. The effectiveness of present legal frameworks in defending copyright holders' rights when AI systems use their creations without permission can lead to infringements of economic and moral rights of the human authors.

The artistic community argues that AI-generated images are an instance of intellectual theft, especially among those engaged in anti-AI activism. They contend that by exploiting artists' creations as training data without getting their approval, AI systems illegally appropriate their creative labor, undermining the worth and rights of human creators. This worry is made worse by the fact that the Indian Copyright Act 1957, which customarily grants authors the sole right to use and distribute their creations, fails to specifically address the difficulties associated with AI-generated content. Traditionally, human-generated works such as music, art, and literature have served as the foundation for copyright protections. [10]

Two main situations come up when talking about AI-generated art: works produced by AI under human supervision and works produced by AI without. Copyright is typically attributed to the human inventor in the first scenario, where humans contribute a considerable amount of creativity and direct the AI to produce a certain result. This is comparable to how a photographer owns the rights to images captured by a camera. Because it is the result of the author's skill, judgment, and creativity, the human involvement guarantees that the work satisfies the originality requirement. However, when AI produces work on its own without direct human involvement, the problem becomes more complicated. It is difficult to assign authorship to AI in these situations since existing legal frameworks do not acknowledge AI as a being that is capable of becoming an author.

Legality as per the Indian Copyright Act,1957

In India, the Copyright Act of 1957 is crucial for determining the author's legal obligation, which may extend to the algorithm developer and the author of the AI-generated work in cases of copyright infringement. The emergence of AI-generated art has sparked heated discussions in the country, especially in relation to its moral and legal implications for intellectual property rights.

According to the Indian Copyright Act 1957, the term "author" can mean different persons depending on the type of work:

(i)                 the author of a literary or dramatic work;

(ii)               the composer of a musical work;

(iii)             the artist of any creative work other than a photograph;

(iv)             the person capturing the photograph;

(v)               the producer of a cinematograph film or sound recording; and

(vi)             the person responsible for creating any computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work.

It is unclear from the preceding definition whether an author must be a human or whether AI software might also qualify. The Act, however, makes it clear that the creator is the rightful owner of any published work.[11]  Having stated the same, the Act provides protection for works created through joint efforts by defining "joint authorship" as a work produced collaboratively by two or more authors, where the contributions of each author are indistinguishable from one another.[12]

There have being judicial precedents which stated that an author shall be a ‘natural person’[13]and not an artificial person but the legislature has not defined the same yet. To address this issue of distinguishing between natural and artificial entities a separate definition of computer programs was introduced and the Act was amended in 1994 to define authorship under Section 2(d)(v) as "the person who causes the work to be created." Interpreting the term "person" is crucial in determining whether AI can be considered an author.

The Act also states that for educational and research purposes, certain ‘fair use’ shall be permitted.[14] In November 2024, a post-graduate law student at O P Jindal Global University filed a complaint against the university in the Punjab and Haryana Court after failing the exam and allegedly utilizing AI-generated information in his assignment. The Court held that the evaluators of the respondent-University determined that the petitioner purportedly engaged in copying, achieving an 88% similarity in the examination through Artificial Intelligence. However, there is no provision for such conduct, nor has it been provided to the petitioner despite multiple requests. Furthermore, the ordinance under which the Unfair Means Case (UMC) was initiated against the petitioner, leading to his failure was not available on the University's website. [15]

It seems like the ministry and legislature themselves are not at par with the debate of AI laws as Minister of State for Industry and Commerce has stated that India's current copyright legislation was enough and that no request to alter it in light of AI-generated works was made in response to a parliamentary inquiry on the subject[16] whereas the Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology, has recognized the importance of the copyright issue in AI, despite the absence of any formal discourse on the subject in the country. [17]Overall, the situation seems complex and is pertinent to be discussed as the need of the hour.

Issues arising out of the Indian Copyright Act,1957

Despite a few judicial decisions, the Indian Copyright Act,1957 is not equipped completely to call out all the challenges occurring out of AI such as-

AI generated content does neither falls in the category of protected or unprotected works, nor it has been defined in the intellectual property law.

The legislators of the intellectual property laws have mirrored the conventional wisdom that humans are assumed to have intelligence and creative work worthy of registration as intellectual property. Any original expression of an idea is protectable under the Indian Copyright Act[18] but it cannot protect anything which already exists in the world.Article 9 (2) of the TRIPS also states that copyright protection shall be extended to the expression of ideas and not ideas only. The term ’original’ is not defined in the Act, hence Courts are often faced with the facts where they have to determine whether the Work is original or not. 

The Act is not concerned with the originality of the idea but only with the expression of it. For ex, the idea of a love story between a boy and a girl cannot be protected since it is the base of all the love stories but a specific expression like Romeo and Juliet is the expression of the same idea, which has its own uniqne features. Hence it could be protected. The issue with content of AI is that even if the idea of a film is given by AI and it is expressed in the form of a film or a novel or music by the producers, their expression shall be protected. But if the idea and/or the expression are given by AI that means it is a work done by some body else because AI is not capable of creating data but it merely collects and re-express a third party data. The Court held in the case of Northrop Ltd. v/s Textea Blackburn Ltd[19]that copyright pertains not to the originality of ideas but to their modes of expression, and that expression of originality is an essential factor for it.

There is no clarity regarding the ownership of works which are partially created by human interference and partially by AI-

There is no way to analyze how AI collects the data and feeds it to general public and hence it cannot come under the ambit of protected data. However, after a human intervention it is possible that a human mind and AI collaboratively could make something original.

Section 178 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 of the Uniter Kingdom treats ‘computer generated works’ as a residual category which applies in the circumstances where there is no human author and hence ownership is given to the person who causes the work to be generated. For instance- a novel first fixed by being typed into a word processor will not be a human generated work as it has a human author i.e. the novelist. The Indian Contract Act 1957 gives no such clarity.

Along with ownership, it is also important to define whether AI shall be a contract-of-service or a contract-for-service for those authors who are partially working with them. As an independent contractor, rights are different than as that of an employee which has to be justified while protecting a work. If that is not the case it is again a matter of disparity whether an AI can become a part of the ‘Joint-authorship’[20] which is defined under the Indian Copyright Act 1957.

Section 17 states that where there is a contract for service the author shall be the first owner. For instance- in case of a commissioned work for writing the lyrics of the song the author shall be the first owner of the copyright. However, Proviso (b) of Section 17 states that in case of a Cinematographic film, the first owner would be the person at whose instance the work is commissioned and not the author.

Distribution of finances and royalties

Since there is no clarity regarding ownership, there is no clarity regarding distribution of rights and finances as well. Under Section 14 of the Act, the copyright owner carries a bundle of rights with himself which includes economic rights. Even if AI is considered as the owner of such work then who shall receive the profit of finances is also questionable. Such rights of profits could either go to the owner of that AI software or the third party from whom that data has been collected by that AI.

Similarly if ownership is given to such works then the distribution of royalties for such a work shall also be a new challenge for the Indian Performing Rights Society which is not mentioned or addressed by the Indian Copyright Act,1957 yet. If such a case is seen with the eyes of AI in the world of films, there is no clarity upon who amongst the producer, artist or AI shall receive the royalty of the work.

Moral rights of such content shall be questionable as moral rights are giver to the original author of the work-

Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act,1957 which deals with authors' moral rights, such as their right to integrity and paternity, was created to safeguard the reputational and personal interests of human creators. It gives protection to the authors in terms of their work cannot get published without credit towards their name and their work cannot be mutilated or distorted without permission. As the name suggests these rights are given by the law to protect the morals and sensitivity of the authors towards their creations. It is challenging to apply these rights to AI, if it is assumed to be an author, because AI lacks human emotions and subjective experiences. This calls into serious doubt the applicability and usefulness of moral rights in AI-related situations.

Responsibility of AI in matters against public policy or offensive material-

The process of content creation for copyright presents several complexities. If AI generates harmful or offensive content, traditional legal remedies such as removing the content or disabling the AI may not sufficiently address the underlying issues of accountability. AI-generated graphics that suggest that an office is on fire when it isn't, or a convincing deepfake video that depicts a CEO announcing a significant product recall that never occurred have already happened. Last year the stock market sell-off due to an image of smoke coming from a skyscraper, illustrating the speed at which fake information may affect actual financials.[21]

Without clear guidelines and regulations, granting authorship rights to AI could lead to broader legal and ethical challenges. Developing a comprehensive framework that balances the rights of AI developers, content users, and the public interest is essential

The Doctrine of Sweat of the Brow places no emphasis on the work's uniqueness or inventiveness, but instead depends on the author's talent and diligence. According to UK courts, a work product must be the author's own creation and cannot be plagiarized; novelty or originality are essentially superfluous. No matter how unique, inventive, or creative the work is—such as compiling records or building databases—a person can still claim exclusive rights to it as long as it was made entirely of their own labor and wasn't plagiarized. Hence the need of the hour is to see through these lapses in the current legal system in order to combat with AI and technology. India is not at a stage where an amalgamation of copyright protection, technology and policy making is required.

PREVAILING INTERNATIONAL LAWS TO COMBAT AI-

The makers of ChatGPT, OpenAI, were sued by well-known comedian Sarah Silverman and a number of other people. According to the complaint, OpenAI "copied Silverman's memoir without consent or credit. The suers claim that such models are themselves infringing the data from others and violating copyright. Claiming that OpenAI was involved in "systematic theft on a mass scale" and that authors ought to be paid for their work, George R.R. Martin, John Grisham, and many other writers sued the firm for copyright infringement. The case is still pending. In 2023 the New York Times had also filed a lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI, alleging that the companies had illegally utilized millions of copyrighted articles to train their generative AI models, resulting in billions of dollars in damages.[22]SuchirBalaji a former employee of OpenAI criticized such data generation and became a whistle-blower of the data theft and claimed on X (formerly known as Twitter) that ‘fair use’ is not a plausible defense for a lot of AI generative products or the training data. He claimed that everyone should be aware about their copyright rights. After revealing such malpractices, he was found murdered in his apartment leading the world to a thought that AI is actually generating a data, one should think about before using.[23]

WIPO 

In order to identify the need of AI laws, WIPO launched a public consultation process in December 2019 and released a draft Issues Paper on ‘IP policy and AI’. The consultation process garnered more than 250 submissions. A revised Issues Paper on AI and IP policy was released in May 2020, taking into consideration the feedback that was collected. The second and third sessions of the WIPO Conversation covered the topics outlined in the Revised Issues Paper in great detail. [24]

This paper addresses the below mentioned issues which are the need of the hour when it comes to Copyright and AI as follows- [25]

(a)           Should copyright be assigned to original literary and artistic works autonomously generatedby AI, or is a human creator necessary?"

(b)          If copyright can be assigned to AI-generated works, to whom should the copyright belong?

(c)           Should a distinct sui generis protection system be considered for original literary and artistic works autonomously generated by AI, potentially featuring a reduced term of protection and other limitations, or categorizing AI-generated works as performances?

(d)          Does the unauthorized use of data contained in copyrighted works for machine learning constitute copyright infringement?

(e)           If the unauthorized use of data contained in copyrighted works for machine learning is deemed a copyright infringement, what implications would this have for AI development and the unrestricted exchange of data necessary for enhancing AI innovation?

(f)           Should an exception for fair usage be considered for the aforementioned copyright infringement?

BERNE Convention and TRIPS[26]-

Depending on the intended use of an otherwise protected work, both the TRIPS Agreement and the Berne Convention allow for exceptions to copyright infringement. Three requirements for exceptions and restrictions to the right of reproduction are outlined in Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention as follows-

(i)                 only in certain special cases;

(ii)               if there is no contradiction with a regular exploitation of works; and

(iii)             only when there is no unjustified harm to the author’s legitimate interests.

The TRIPS Agreement's Article 13 has similar standards. Additionally, the fair use theory applies in the United States. The main basis for the pertinent cases is usually that the data use only offered some portions of the copyrighted literary work to the public rather than the whole work.

USA

The Copyright Act in the United States was revised in the late 20th century to address the challenges posed by digital networked technologies. The copyright system has demonstrated resilience and continues to adapt as necessary. Due to the emergence and requirements of AI laws, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) launched a comprehensive initiative to examine the impact of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) on copyright law and policy in 2023 and has officially submitted a report on the same in 2024. [27]

In April 2023, a brand-new song with Drake and The Weeknd's voices received over fifteen million social media views and 600,000 Spotify listens. However, because the vocals were unapproved, AI-generated copies, neither artist was aware of the song prior to its publication. [28]The viral hit “Heart on My Sleeve,” commonly referred to as the “Fake Drake” song, is a high-profile example of a burgeoning subgenre of sound recordings using generative AI systems[29] to create vocals that can pass for those of a favorite artist. Such instances are defined in the report as, “Digital Replicas”

Several US states have taken action to either update their current right of publicity rules or enact new legislation in reaction to the rise of AI-generated digital reproductions. For instance, voice simulations are now covered by Tennessee's recently expanded right of publicity statute. [30]

Recently, legislation banning the use of digital copies was enacted in two other states: Louisiana and New York. The Louisiana statute prohibits the utilization of digital reproductions, specifically targeting active, professional entertainers. It stipulates that during a public presentation of a scripted audiovisual piece or a live dramatic performance, if the usage aims to convey, and successfully conveys, the distinct impression that the professional performer is embodying a fictional character. [31]

Although no federal law specifically addresses the use of a person's voice, picture, or likeness, a number of them restrict the production or use of digital copies under specific conditions. The most pertinent laws and regulations in the US are-

1.      the Communications Act,

2.      the Federal Trade Commission Act,

3.      the Lanham Act,

4.      the Copyright Act.

Original works of authorship, such as pictures or audio or video recordings, are protected by copyright, as are the materials that could be used to create a Digital Replicas.[32] These exclusive rights may be violated by Digital Replicas created by consuming copies of previously published copyrighted works or by changing them in some way, for as by overlaying a person's face on an audiovisual piece or mimicking their voice while singing the words to a song. The person portrayed may have a copyright claim for infringement of the entire work if they are the owner of the copyrighted work. Even when copyright is used in a work of authorship, it does not, by itself, protect a person's identify. Just a copy of their voice or appearance wouldn't violate their copyright.

According to USCO's Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, which was published in the Federal Register on March 16, 2023, "a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine then it shall not be registered under copyright law," as "copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity." The inquiry presented by USCO is whether the "work" predominantly stems from human authorship augmented by AI help, or if the traditional elements of authorship—such as literary, artistic, or musical expression, or features of selection and arrangement—were wholly generated by AI. By implementing this rule on ‘Zarya’ the USCO has also set an example.[33]

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 

From a specialized technology, artificial intelligence (AI) has quickly developed into a vital part of many creative processes. AI was first limited to data analysis and automation chores, but it has since developed into a potent instrument for creating literature, music, art, and other creative products. The socioeconomic frameworks supporting cultural production must be critically reevaluated in light of this major technological shift, especially in light of copyright law's role in fostering creativity and navigating the intricate effects of technological change on authors, artists, and the markets for their work.

This research leads to the outcome that technology is running as per its pace all across the globe and people who are misusing the technology for content theft and training AI without the consent of the data owners shall be held accountable. It also proves that the current legal framework of India is not sufficient to protect the industry from AI related complexities. The film industry in India, immediately requires an AI specific law with a multi-disciplinary approach with the intersection of technology, intellectual property and public policy. India has reached a stage where there shall be a balance between the greater good of the country on one hand and the protection of content on the other. The content owners shall also be made aware of the rights and shall be encouraged to raise their voices if their data is infringed by another person, a training model or any software.

In the upcoming development of laws, India should look upon the technologicaladvancements after considering such thefts and infringements taking place at an international level. As AI is now a global phenomenon, it could easily be said that a work make in India could be easily misused in any other country of the world.  As Europe has moved towards Digital Markets Act to regulate data use and promote fairness in the market, India shall also take inspiration from the countries who are in the process of implementing AI laws. Leadership roles shall be given on contracts, regulatory, protection and compliance laws keeping in view the artists interests. India shall be able to guarantee that in the coming future AI should be a stimulant for creativity and not a source of moral and legal dilemmas by cultivating a legal framework that supports innovation.

If the viewpoint of the author may be summarised, certain shifts could be made by India to balance law and technology. One suggestion is to classify AI as a tool rather than a creator, guaranteeing that a natural or legal person is the rightful proprietor of works produced by AI. In addition to bringing the legal system into line with the reality of technology advancement, such legislative measures would bring much-needed transparency and accountability. Detailed rules pertaining to AI and copyright must be established immediately. As AI's impact on creative production grows, there is a serious legal gap in the current Indian Copyright Act since it does not acknowledge AI as an author of creative works.

Furthermore it is critical to protect the interests of artists and creators for Indian economy and the film industry. Mechanisms that allow the producers to prevent their creations from being used in AI training datasets without their consent letter should be included in the law. To guarantee that artists maintain ownership over their intellectual property, this may entail requiring AI companies to be more transparent about the data they use and enacting stricter permission regulations. And lastly in order to properly reflect the realities of the AI era, when algorithms may produce derivative or transformative works, the fair use concept has to be broadened and improved. To ensure a balanced approach that upholds the rights of original artists while promoting technological innovation, clear and specific standards are required to define what constitutes fair use of existing copyrighted material by AI.

* Ph.D. Scholar, School of Law and Jurisprudence, Shri Venkateshwara University, Gajraula, Uttar Pradesh

** Asst. Prof & Ph.D. Supervisor, School of Law and Jurisprudence, Shri Venkateshwara University, Gajraula, Uttar Pradesh

[1]Samuel Gibbs, 'Press Association Wins Google Grant to Run News Service Written by Computers' (The Guardian, 6 July 2017) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/06/press-association-wins-google-grant-to-run-news-service-written-by-computers accessed 20 January 2025.

[2]Stephen Marche, 'Intentionality, Beauty, and Authorship: Co-Writing with AI'  https://www.thecreativepenn.com/2023/05/12/intentionality-beauty-and-authorship-co-writing-with-ai-with-stephen-marche/ accessed 20 January 2025.

[3]Jazz Tangcay, 'Artificial Intelligence and the Runway to "Everything Everywhere All at Once"' (Variety, 22 February 2023) https://variety.com/2023/artisans/news/artificial-intelligence-runway-everything-everywhere-all-at-once-1235532322/ accessed 20 January 2025.

[4]Neil Sahota, The AI Takeover in Cinema: How Movie Studios Use Artificial Intelligence, Forbes (Mar. 8, 2024), https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilsahota/2024/03/08/the-ai-takeover-in-cinema-how-movie-studios-use-artificial-intelligence/accessed 20 January 2025

[5]Shah Rukh Khan-My-Ad, Ogilvy (Oct. 2021), https://www.ogilvy.com/work/shah-rukh-khan-my-ad#portfolio-info, accessed 20 January 2025

[6] Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India &Ors., CS(COMM) 652/2023 (Delhi High Court Sept. 20, 2023).

[7]Art in Artificial Intelligence: Bangalore Artist Launches NFT at Sotheby's' (The New Indian Express, 5 October 2021) https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/2021/Oct/05/art-in-artificial-intelligence-bangalore-artist-launchesnft-at-sothebys-2367596.html accessed 20 January 2025

[8] 1996(38)DRJ81

[9]Shweta Sharma, 'Exploring the Enigmas of AI-Generated Works: A Paradigm of Copyright'  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/exploring-enigmas-ai-generated-works-paradigm-copyright/ accessed 20 January 2025.

[10]SubhajitBasu and AnkeetaDutt, 'AI-Generated Art: A Challenge to Creative Integrity' (Indian Journal of Law and Technology),https://www.ijlt.in/post/ai-generated-art-a-challenge-to-creative-integrity#:~:text=Historically%2C%20copyright%20protections%20have%20been,copyright%20in%20AI%2Dgenerated%20art accessed 20 January 2025.

[11]Copyright Act 1957, s 17

[12]Copyright Act 1957, s 2(z)

[13]Rupendra Kashyap V Jiwan Publishing House (P) Ltd (1996), Camlin Pvt. Ltd. V National Pencil Industries(1986)

[14]Copyright Act 1957, s 52(1)(za)

[15]Law Student Moves Court Against O.P. Jindal University for Failing Him in Examination' (The Indian Express) https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/law-student-moves-court-against-o-p-jindal-university-for-failing-him-in-examination-9658580/ accessed 20 January 2025.

[16]Press Information Bureau (PIB), 'Press Release'https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2004715 accessed 20 January 2025.

[17]Certainly Important Case: MOS IT on NYT Lawsuit Against OpenAI, Microsoft' (Business Standard, 10 January 2024) https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/ertainly-important-case-mos-it-on-nyt-lawsuit-against-openai-microsoft-124010100805_1.html accessed 20 January 2025.

[18]Copyright Act 1957, s 13

[19] (1974) R.P.C. 57 at p.68 as quoted in W.R. Cornish, Cases and Materials on Intellectual Property (Sweet and Maxwell, 2nd ed.,1996) p.253.

[20]Copyright Act 1957, s 2(z)

[21]Bernard Marr, 'The Dark Side of AI: How Deepfakes and Disinformation Are Becoming a Billion-Dollar Business Risk' (Forbes, 6 November 2024) https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2024/11/06/the-dark-side-of-ai-how-deepfakes-and-disinformation-are-becoming-a-billion-dollar-business-risk/ accessed 20 January 2025.

[22]Antonio Pequeno IV, 'OpenAI Scores Court Victory After Copyright Lawsuit from Sarah Silverman Is Partially Dismissed' (Forbes, 13 February 2024) https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/02/13/openai-scores-court-victory-after-copyright-lawsuit-from-sarah-silverman-is-partially-dismissed/ accessed 20 January 2025.

[23]'SuchirBalaji, OpenAIWhistleblower, Found Dead at US Apartment' (NDTV, 20 January 2025) https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/suchir-balaji-openai-whistleblower-found-dead-at-us-apartment-report-7244629#:~:text=The%2026%2Dyear%2Dold%20reportedly,The%20Mercury%20News%2C%20Suchir%20Balaji accessed 20 January

[24]'Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property' (World Intellectual Property) https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/artificial_intelligence/conversation.html accessed 20 January 2025.

[25]WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property (IP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), Second Session, Draft Issues Paper ON Intellectual Property Policy and ARTIFICIAL Intelligence, prepared by the WIPO Secretariat document code- (WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1)

[26] See for example, Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014), White v. West (S.D.N.Y. 2014); Fox v. TVEyes (S.D.N.Y. 2014); Authors Guild v. Google, 770 F.Supp.2d 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); A.V. v. iParadigms, LLC (4thCir. 2009); Perfect 10 v. Amazon, 508 F.3d 1146 (9thCir. 2007); Field v. Google, 412 F.Supp.2d 1106 (D. Nv. 2006); and Kelly v. Arriba Soft, 336 F.3d 811 (9thCir. 2003).

[27] chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-1-Digital-Replicas-Report.pdf

[28] Colin Stutz, The Fake Drake AI Song Earned Millions of Streams — But Will Anyone Get Paid?, BILLBOARD (Apr. 19, 2023), https://www.billboard.com/pro/fake-drake-ai-song-earned-millions-streams-get-paid/.

[29] An “AI System” is a software product or service that substantially incorporates one or more AI models and is designed for use by an end-user.  NOI at 59948; see also James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, Pub. L. 117–263, § 7223(4)(A), 136 Stat. 2395, 3669 (2022) (defining “artificial intelligence system” as “any data system, software, application, tool, or utility that operates in whole or in part using dynamic or static machine learning algorithms or other forms of artificial intelligence”).  

[30] Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024, Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 588

[31] LA. STAT. ANN. § 51:470.4(C) (2024).

[32] See 17 U.S.C. § 102

[33]'Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: AI' (National Law Review) https://natlawreview.com/article/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-ai-washington-report accessed 20 January 2025.