Context: The Indian Copyright Office rejected American computer scientist Stephen Thaler’s application to register copyright for an AI-generated artwork titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise.
- The artwork was generated autonomously by DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), an AI system developed by Thaler.
- Thaler identified DABUS as the author and himself as the copyright owner, raising the question: Can an AI system legally be an author under Indian copyright law?
The Legal Framework
Originality
- Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works.
- The Act does not define "originality"; the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak held that a work need not be novel or groundbreaking but must demonstrate a minimum degree of creativity and cannot merely be copied or mechanically reproduced.
Authorship of Computer-Generated Works
- Section 2(d)(vi) defines the author of a computer-generated work as “the person who causes the work to be created.”
- The key issue was whether "person" refers to the AI system producing the output or the human who designs and operates the system.
Ownership and Transfer
- Section 17: The author is generally the first owner of copyright.
- Sections 18 and 19: Copyright can subsequently be assigned or transferred through legally recognised agreements.
- These provisions assume that the author/owner is a legal person capable of holding, transferring and enforcing rights.
Copyright Office’s Decision
AI Output Can Be Original
- The Office accepted that the artwork generated by DABUS possessed sufficient originality to qualify for copyright protection.
- Therefore, the central problem was not originality but authorship.
AI Cannot Currently Be the Author
- The Office held that AI does not presently possess legal personality under Indian law and therefore cannot hold the legal status of an author.
- Legal persons include natural persons and recognised juristic persons, such as companies, which can hold property, enter contracts and exercise legal rights.
- DABUS is not a recognised juristic person and therefore cannot be treated as the statutory author.
Who "Caused" the Work to Be Created?
- Although DABUS produced the final image, it operated within a system designed and set in motion by Thaler.
- The Office therefore treated DABUS as a technological tool and Thaler as the person who legally "caused" the work to be created.
- However, Thaler had refused to amend his application to identify himself as the author and continued to insist that DABUS be recognised as the author.
- Consequently, the application did not satisfy the statutory requirements.
Rejection of the Alternative Claim
- Thaler also sought to have DABUS recorded as the technological generator rather than the author.
- The Office rejected this because the copyright register cannot be used to indirectly confer legal status on an AI system.
- It also noted that no appropriate application seeking such an entry had been made.
Why Legal Personhood Matters
- Copyright is not merely recognition of creativity; it creates legally enforceable rights and responsibilities.
- The copyright framework requires an entity capable of:
- Holding property rights;
- Assigning/transferring copyright;
- Entering into agreements; and
- Enforcing rights through legal processes.
- Granting authorship to AI would therefore require addressing the question of AI legal personhood, not merely AI creativity.
Broader Significance
Human-Centred Copyright Framework
- The decision reinforces the present legal position that AI can be a tool for creating copyrightable works, but cannot itself be the legal author.
- It distinguishes between creativity/originality of an output and the legal capacity to own and exercise copyright.
Parliament's Role
- The Copyright Office clarified that any decision to extend legal personhood or authorship to autonomous AI is a policy question for Parliament.
- Administrative authorities cannot create such a status merely by reinterpreting existing legislation.
Emerging Policy Questions
- Increasingly autonomous AI systems raise questions regarding:
- Who owns AI-generated works?
- What degree of human involvement is necessary for copyright?
- How should copyright be assigned where human creative input is minimal?
- Who bears liability for AI-generated content?
- Should highly autonomous AI ever receive a distinct legal status?
