Indian Copyright Office: AI Author Ruling Confirms No AI Authorship

• The Indian Copyright Office has ruled that an AI system cannot be recognized as an author under the Copyright Act, 1957.
• This decision rejected an application by Stephen L Thaler to list the AI system DABUS as the author of an artwork titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise."
• Registrar of Copyrights Dr. Unnat P Pandit clarified that works generated through AI can still satisfy originality requirements for copyright if a human is identified as the "person who causes the work to be created."
• The ruling emphasized that AI systems like DABUS are not natural or juristic persons and thus cannot hold authorship under Section 2(d)(vi) of the Act.
• This means that while AI cannot be an author, human creators can secure copyright for AI-assisted works by demonstrating their role in causing the creation.

For lawyers advising clients on intellectual property in India, this ruling underscores that AI-generated works can indeed be copyrighted, provided a human creator can be identified.

The Indian Copyright Office has issued a significant ruling regarding the authorship of works created using artificial intelligence, firmly stating that an AI system itself cannot be recognized as an author under the Copyright Act, 1957. This definitive stance emerged from the rejection of a copyright application that sought to name an AI system, DABUS, as the creator of an artwork.

The application in question was submitted by American computer scientist Stephen L Thaler, who sought copyright registration for an artwork titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise." Thaler's filing uniquely identified the Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS) as the author, while designating himself as the copyright owner. However, the Registrar of Copyrights, Dr. Unnat P Pandit, clarified that while AI systems cannot hold authorship, works generated through AI or computational processes are still capable of meeting the originality criteria required for copyright protection under Indian law. This distinction is crucial for understanding the evolving landscape of intellectual property in the age of artificial intelligence.

The core of the Indian Copyright Office AI author ruling hinges on the interpretation of the Copyright Act, 1957. Specifically, Section 2(d)(vi) of the Act defines the author of a computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work as "the person who causes the work to be created." In the case of "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," the Copyright Office concluded that Stephen Thaler, rather than the AI system DABUS, was the individual who caused the artwork to be created, thereby fulfilling the statutory requirement.

The Registrar explicitly stated that DABUS, as an artificial intelligence, does not qualify as a natural or juristic person recognized by law. Consequently, it could not be listed as an author under Section 2(d)(vi). Thaler had argued that despite his role in designing and configuring the system, DABUS autonomously generated the artwork. He claimed the AI produced the final visual expression after being trained using his photographs, curated thesaurus entries, and English sentences, performing the core generative process independently. However, this argument did not sway the Indian Copyright Office, which maintained the necessity of human agency in the act of creation for copyright purposes.

This decision from the Indian Copyright Office carries significant implications for the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence copyright in India. While it unequivocally bars AI systems from being recognized as authors, it simultaneously opens a clear pathway for securing intellectual property protection for works created with AI assistance. The key lies in identifying a human "person who causes the work to be created," aligning with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1957 Section 2(d)(vi).

For lawyers advising clients on intellectual property in India, this ruling underscores that AI-generated works can indeed be copyrighted, provided a human creator can be identified. This requires careful documentation of the human's involvement in the generative process, even when the AI performs significant autonomous functions. The clarification by Registrar of Copyrights Dr. Unnat P Pandit ensures that innovation in AI-assisted creation is not stifled, but rather guided by established legal principles requiring human attribution for authorship.

Lawyers advising clients on intellectual property in India must note that while AI systems cannot be recognized as authors, works generated through AI can still be copyrighted if a human is identified as the 'person who causes the work to be created' under Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957. This clarifies the path for securing IP protection for AI-assisted creations, requiring careful attribution and process documentation.

Source: Original reporting via {source}