Copyright and Human Authorship: How the Delhi High Court Is Addressing the Question of Tech-Assisted Creativity

Technology has changed the way people create and share content. Writers, artists and musicians now use digital tools for creation at almost every stage of the creative process. These tools have now become so advanced that they can suggest words, generate visuals and even complete paragraphs, often producing results that look like human work perhaps even like this blog!  This shift has made one legal question more urgent than ever: who is the author when a piece of work is created with the help of technology? This question has now become a lingering question to almost all jurisdictions across the world. The Indian courts too are now faced with such multifaceted questions, especially the Delhi High Court, which has now dealt with cases that try to answer this question.

What the Law Says About Authorship

Under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, the concept of authorship has been directly tied to human creativity. Section 2(d) of the Act, defines an “author” as the person who creates the work. For most types of works, literary, artistic or musical it clearly refers to a human creator. However, for computer-generated works, Section 2(d)(vi) shall apply which states that the author is “the person who causes the work to be created.” When lawmakers introduced this clause decades ago, it was during the era when computers followed exact instructions from humans and did not perform independent creative tasks.

Today, however, digital platforms can not only produce poems but also articles or images in response to a short prompt from a user. This raises many questions upon authorship. Who actually causes the work to be created the person typing the prompt; the company that built the system, or the person who designed the algorithm behind it? Or the person who provided the prompts?  The statute does not answer this, and courts now face the challenge of applying old language to an age of new technology especially while interpreting the application of authorship.

Creativity Still Needs a Human Touch

Indian courts have contrary to certain jurisdictions, have consistently to this date held that creativity and originality are essential for copyright protection to be extended to any works. As was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, wherein the Court held that a work must reflect some level of human creativity and judgment. The Court also went on to reject the idea that mere effort or labour was enough. This means that a person using technology must demonstrate real creative input. This interpretation seems to be beneficial to understand the present question of query-based results wherein it can be understood that if someone simply enters a few words into a tool and accepts the suggested output, that limited contribution might not meet the required threshold of originality.

The ANI Media Case

This debate became very real in the case of ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI OpCo LLC, which is currently before the Delhi High Court. ANI, a well-known news agency, claims that its news reports were used without permission to train a language model. The case has forced the Court to consider three key issues.

• First, whether using copyrighted material for training purposes counts as “reproduction” under Section 14(a)(i) of the Act.
• Second, whether the summaries or rephrased versions produced by such systems amount to infringement.
• Third, whether the Court in India has jurisdiction to decide when much of the data processing happens on servers abroad.

The defence in the case, has till now argued that using data for analytical or technical purposes is different from reproducing it for expression. The company says that the process transforms the text and that Indian law does not explicitly ban the use of published content for machine learning. The final outcome of this case will likely shape how Indian law treats technology-assisted creation in future.

Exceptions Under Indian Law

Unlike the United States wherein the “fair use” doctrine allows for broader judicial discretion, India follows a closed list of exceptions under Section 52 of the Copyright Act of India. The Courts have traditionally interpreted these exceptions strictly when interpreting exceptions under the Act. For example, in University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Service, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court emphasised that exceptions must stay within statutory limits of the Act. This approach leaves very little room for courts to introduce new doctrines that would protect the use of material in data-based or automated training.

Lessons From Other Countries

Other jurisdictions are also facing similar problems. In the United Kingdom, courts have made it clear that only natural persons can be listed as authors. The relevant section of their Copyright, Designs and Patents Act is almost identical to India’s Section 2(d)(vi), but British judges have chosen to interpret it conservatively. In the United States, the Copyright Office continues to insist that authorship must be human and that only works shaped by human creativity can be registered. China, however, has taken a different view. In a 2023 case, the Beijing Internet Court recognised limited protection for a work generated with computer assistance after finding that the user had exercised significant creative control.

Personality Rights and New Legal Concerns

Courts in India have also begun to address the misuse of personal images, voices and identities in the digital space as is seen from the various cases that are being filed by celebrities now across the board. The Delhi High Court has now passed various interim orders protecting public figures from manipulated or impersonated media that use their likeness or voice without permission. Such rulings of the court reflect upon the judicial awareness of how digital creation tools can affect individual privacy and integrity.

The Way Forward

India’s law is still catching up with the speed of technological change and the changes in copyright that follows it. Legal scholars and policy experts have called for updates to the Copyright Act to deal with tech-assisted creativity more directly. The upcoming Digital India Bill is expected to introduce clearer rules for how digital platforms operate and how creative ownership should be recognised in such contexts. The Proposals include setting out what level of human input is necessary, creating transparency duties for companies that use published data, and possibly establishing licensing frameworks to ensure fair compensation for content owners.

Conclusion

Copyright is built around the idea of protecting human imagination and rewarding personal creativity. While technology has expanded what we can make, it has also blurred the boundaries of what counts as human authorship. As the Delhi High Court examines these new challenges, India stands at a turning point. Any reform will have to find a careful balance between protecting creators and allowing innovation to grow. The answer will define not just how the law views creativity, but also how it values the human mind in an age where machines assist almost every act of creation.

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