Copyright & IPR Issues with AI-Generated Content

The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in content creation, have raised complex legal questions related to copyright and intellectual property rights (IPR). AI-generated content spans various formats, including music, video, and written texts. This article delves into how AI-generated content is treated under copyright laws, with a focus on India, and compares it with other jurisdictions such as the USA, UK, and France.

Copyright and IPR Laws in India for AI-Generated Content

In India, copyright is governed by the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. The Act grants protection to original works of authorship, such as literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, as well as cinematograph films and sound recordings. However, the law is silent on the issue of AI-generated content. Indian copyright law typically requires a human author to claim copyright, making it unclear whether AI-generated works can receive copyright protection.

1. Music

• In India, music copyright is divided into several components: lyrics, composition, and sound recording.
• If AI generates a piece of music autonomously, the challenge arises in determining the ownership of copyright. Indian law currently doesn't recognize AI as an "author," so it remains ambiguous whether the entity that programmed or deployed the AI would hold the copyright.
• In cases where AI assists humans in creating music, copyright could still belong to the human artist, but fully autonomous creations remain legally unclear.

2. Video

• Videos involve multiple elements—visuals, scripts, and sound recordings. AI can generate or contribute to any of these elements.
• Under Indian law, a video creator would typically own the copyright to the entire production. In AI-generated videos, however, the ownership of content created entirely by machines could fall into a legal grey area.
• A question arises as to whether the AI developer, the person deploying the AI, or no one at all would hold copyright.

3. Informative Written Transcript

• Texts and written works are protected under Indian copyright law as literary works. However, since AI lacks the capability to claim authorship, it remains uncertain whether the developer, user, or the AI itself can claim copyright.
• Unlike creative works, informative transcripts could fall under a "database" or "compilation" category, which also leaves the question of ownership open.

Comparative Analysis: Legal Treatment in Different Jurisdictions

1. United States

In the US, copyright is regulated by the Copyright Act of 1976, which requires a "human author" to claim copyright protection. The US Copyright Office has consistently denied copyright registration for works that lack human authorship.

• Case Example: "Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023)"-This recent case involved an AI-generated artwork created by the algorithm known as "Creativity Machine." The court reaffirmed the US Copyright Office’s refusal to grant copyright protection, emphasizing that human creativity is central to copyright law in the country.
• AI in Music: The US law does not yet provide any clear guidelines on whether AI-generated music can be copyrighted. However, there have been disputes where AI-created samples were used without consent from the original creators, raising copyright infringement concerns.

2. United Kingdom

The UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act (CDPA) of 1988 is unique in that it recognizes "computer-generated works." Section 9(3) of the CDPA stipulates that for such works, "the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken." Therefore, AI-generated works could potentially be copyrighted, but the right holder would likely be the person responsible for programming or controlling the AI.

• Case Example: "DeepMind's AI-generated music (2021)" This involved AI systems generating musical compositions. Under UK law, the individuals who programmed the AI or those overseeing its use could be considered the "authors."

3. France

France's copyright law, Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle- the French Intellectual Property Code of 1992 also requires human authorship for copyright protection. AI-generated works do not fit neatly into the traditional framework of copyright in France, which prioritizes human creativity.

• Recent Example: OpenAI in Music In 2023, OpenAI faced challenges in France regarding AI-generated music that allegedly infringed on existing works without clear licensing agreements. French courts have remained skeptical about granting copyrights to AI-generated works without human intervention.

4. India

As discussed earlier, India has yet to update its copyright laws to account for AI-generated works. The requirement for human authorship means that fully AI-generated works might not receive copyright protection. However, the involvement of AI in augmenting human creativity continues to be an area of uncertainty.

• Case Example: AI-Generated Artwork in India (2022)- Andersen v. Stability AI et al. (late 2022) Although there are no high-profile cases in India addressing AI copyright directly, debates have emerged around artworks and literature generated by AI, with industry stakeholders calling for legal clarity.

Conclusion

The legal treatment of AI-generated content under copyright law varies significantly across jurisdictions. Countries like the UK have taken steps toward recognizing AI-generated content, whereas India, USA, and France remain rooted in the principle of human authorship. As AI becomes more integral to creative industries, international copyright frameworks may need harmonization to address these new challenges. In India, legislative updates or judicial interpretation will be essential to resolve the uncertainty surrounding AI-generated content, especially as it becomes more prevalent in music, video, and written texts.