AI-Generated Content and The Copyright: Who Holds the Rights

Introduction 

The traditional boundaries of copyright law are changing dramatically as machines can now produce text, music, and images. There are difficult legal and philosophical issues that come up when creative output is produced by an algorithm or a prompt rather than by a human mind: Who can claim to be the author? Does copyright protection apply to such works? Is it possible for current frameworks to adjust to these new realities?

In order to address the issues of machine-generated creativity, this paper explores the fundamentals of copyright law. It investigates whether and how copyright protection extends to works created autonomously by artificial intelligence — and importantly, who, if anyone, can rightfully own them. It is concentrated on India, the US and UK with a roundup of relevant global developments.

The Inherent Dilemma of AI and the Creative Soul How articles, images, and songs use Authorship in a world that’s already written? More and more literature/art/music is being made by machines; an essential question to ask is if it is owned by the creator. Copyright law is built on human ingenuity, and hacking it is harder. It protects “original works of authorship,” but who is its author when no one human was? The US, UK, and Indian courts and legislators are addressing this changing issue in different ways.

Background: The Human Authorship Principle

• The Copyright System is based upon the idea that only works written by human beings shall be protected. Section 13[1] is the machinery for protection in original works of literature, dramatic music and artistic work provided there is a human author. Section 2(d) defines “author” for various works but does not envisage non-human creation.[2]

• In the US, the Copyright Act protects “original works of authorship” fixed in a tangible medium[3]. The U.S. Copyright Office’s Compendium, states that works produced by machines “without any creative input or intervention from a human author” are not registrable.[4]
• In UK, The CDPA is more flexible, section 9(3) provides that for computer-generated works, “the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”[5] Thus, the law attributes authorship to the human who made the creative arrangements.

The Indian Legal Position

Indian copyright law has not yet caught up to consider AI as an author. The lack of statutory guidance means that currently, only human creators can claim ownership. However, some interpretations of Section 2(d)(vi)[6] – with its use of “the person who causes the work to be created,” present a narrow opening for considering human involvement in generating AI content. Yet, without reform, originality and human creativity remain central.

Indian courts have, on more than one occasion, interpreted originality as requiring a “modicum of creativity.”[7] Works created mechanically or automatically are not protected. By this reasoning, works created completely or almost completely through AI would likely be too unoriginal. Thus, India continues to take a human-cantered approach, even as a reform policy debate begins to take shape.

Global Perspective

(a) United States:

The US is among those countries that have the most strict approach to the question of AI authorship, maintaining that copyright protects only works created by human intelligence. In Thaler v. Perlmutter[8], Stephen Thaler sought to register A Recent Entrance to Paradise, an artwork created by his “Creativity Machine.” The Copyright Office refused to register the claim, citing that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement.” The District Court agreed and stated that works independently created by a non-human are excluded from protection. The 2023 Guidance[9] allows only creative elements that involve “creative control” exerted by humans. As such, things that exist only as A.I.-generated works don’t count as authors in the United States; authorship is not recognized with respect to non-human creativity. It follows from here that only human, and not machine, innovation should be rewarded by copyright.

(b) United Kingdom:

The United Kingdom has a pragmatic approach: the author is defined as “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken” under Section 9(3) of the CDPA. Although no case law exists for interpretation, such a clause ensures that computer-generated works would not immediately be in the public domain.

This principle is applicable in sectors such as video games and digital art where algorithmic ingenuity is essential. Critics argue, though, that this will be going too far in defining originality since many persons who are not especially artists will be credited. In the British system, protection and commercial certainty for investments in new technologies seem to hold more weight.[10]

(c) European Union – The CJEU’s “Human Touch” Doctrine

As in Infopaq International A/S,[11] where the Court emphasised as being towards human intellectual effort as the criterion of originality, CJEU continually reiterates that copyright requires “the author’s own intellectual creation”. In a bid to balance innovation with legal certainty, the European Parliament is currently considering whether to introduce AI-generated works as a sui generis right, which would provide only minimum protection without recognizing AI as author.[12]

Can AI be an author? The question is this: Should AI be an author?

This affects law, ethics, and future policies. AI can write music, art, and stories that can compare to the work of humans. Regulators need to bring together human ideas with machine power, but not destroy the roots of copyright.

The philosophical and legal roots of authorship.

Copyright law has two ideas: creativeness and rights. Authorship implies personal expression and accountability—qualities machines lack. As reaffirmed in Thaler v. Perlmutter, “copyright has never stretched so far as to protect works produced by machines operating without human involvement.”

Still, some argue that AI extends human ingenuity. Developers invest intellectual and financial effort in designing systems capable of producing creative works. Denying protection, they contend, risks discouraging innovation.

Competing Policy Approaches: From Human-Centric to Hybrid Models

1. Human-Centric Model (U.S. & EU): Only humans qualify as authors. The U.S. Copyright Office and the CJEU’s “intellectual creation” doctrine restrict protection to human expression, ensuring moral responsibility but leaving autonomous AI works unprotected.
2. Attribution or “Arranger” Model (U.K. & India): Under the CDPA 1988 §9(3) and the Indian Act §2(d)(vi), authorship is assigned to the person who made the creative arrangements. This preserves ownership continuity but is increasingly challenged as AI autonomy grows.
3. Hybrid or Sui Generis Model (EU & Asia): Proposed in EU and WIPO discussions, this model would grant limited economic rights to AI developers or users—without naming AI as the author [13], balancing human-centric principles with protection against economic loss from unprotected AI works.

3. Moral and Economical Effects

Giving copyright to AI could let companies make many copies of work and take over culture markets, pushing out real artists. But not giving any protection might stop people from putting money into AI work[14]. It also raises issues of who is responsible. If AI makes copies that break laws or harm people, who should be held responsible, a person or a legal group? Law makers thus want a human to be responsible for content made by AI, either by being named or through a contract.[15]

4. Toward a Balanced Future Framework

Most scholars and institutions advocate a balanced middle ground, recognizing that AI is a tool — albeit an advanced one — in the creative process. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the OECD have both suggested adaptive frameworks that respect human originality while incentivizing AI-driven innovation[16].

The future likely lies in attribution-based hybrid models:

• Preserve authorship for humans exercising creative control.
• Grant limited neighbouring rights to developers or organizations for fully autonomous AI outputs.
• Mandate transparency and disclosure to ensure accountability and consumer trust.

CONCLUSION

The world of books, films and music may soon face a new foe.AI, the intelligent machines, also challenge the core ideas of copyright who makes the works, who owns them and who can own them. The US, now, says anything that is not made by a person cannot be protected by copyright. The law in India is not yet clear. The UK takes a middle view and says the person who gets the work made by others owns it. The word for creators, firms and lawmakers is simple. They need people making their own stuff and know how to own it. Making a work with machines is now all around us.

The only way to help make sure you own it is to have clear proof it was you who put in the human work and thought. It is also wise to spell out in clear legal terms who owns what in a deal. Lawmakers now ask what can I do. Do we need a new copyright law for this world of machine-made or AI works? For now, the world does not have an answer to the question who owns a machine-made or AI work.

Author: Sonakshi Desai, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to [email protected] or at IIPRD. 

References

• S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023).
• European Parliament, Report on Intellectual Property Rights for the Development of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (2020/2015(INI)).
• WIPO, Revised Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence (2020).
• Litman, The Public Domain, 39 Emory L.J. 965 (1990).
• OECD, AI, Accountability and Liability (2022).
• WIPO, Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence, Third Session Summary (2023).AI-Generated Work and its Implications on Copyright Law in India https://or.niscpr.res.in/index.php/JIPR/article/view/5862
• AI-Generated Works Copyright Denied by D.C. Court,” McNeeslaw.com, Mar. 2025. https://www.mcneeslaw.com/ai-generated-works-copyright-denied/
• Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works: Exploring Originality and Ownership in a Digital Landscape. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/asian-journal-of-international-law/article/copyright-protection-for-aigenerated-works-exploring-originality-and-ownership-in-a-digital landscape/12B8B8D836AC9DDFFF4082F7859603E3

[1] The Copyright Act, 1957, Act No. 14 of 157, § 13, India.

[2] The Copyright Act, 1957, Act No. 14 of 157, § 2(d)(vi), India.

[3] Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).

[4] U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COMPENDIUM OF U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE PRACTICES § 313.2 (3d ed. 2021).

[5] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, c. 48, § 9(3) (U.K.).

[6] Id 1.

[7] Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1

[8] Thaler v. Perlmutter, 2023 WL 5333236 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023).

[9] U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023).

[10] Lionel Bently & Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law 124 (6th ed. 2022).

[11] Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening, C-5/08 (2009).

[12] European Parliament, Report on Intellectual Property Rights for the Development of Artificial Intelligence Technologies, 2020/2015(INI).

[13] WIPO, Revised Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence (2020).

[14] J. Litman, The Public Domain, 39 Emory L.J. 965 (1990).

[15] OECD, AI, Accountability and Liability (2022).

[16] WIPO, Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence, Third Session Summary (2023).