Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright: Rethinking Intellectual Property in the Age of Generative AI

Paper Code: AIJACLAV14RP2025

Category: Research Paper

Date of Publication: May 19, 2025

Citation: Ms. Chagam Raghavi & Ms. Sodisetty Venkata Prasanna, “Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright: Rethinking Intellectual Property in the Age of Generative AI", 5, AIJACLA, 146, 146-156 (2025), <https://www.aequivic.in/post/artificial-intelligence-and-the-copyright-rethinking-intellectual-property-in-the-age-of-generative>

Author Details: Ms. Chagam Raghavi, Student, Vignan Institute of Law, Vadlamudi &

Ms. Sodisetty Venkata Prasanna, Student, Vignan Institute of Law, Vadlamudi

Download PDF

Abstract

The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed various fields, including software development, product development and content creation. However, these developments have raised serious moral and legal questions about copyright. This study examines the relationship between AI and copyright and examines important questions such as: who owns the works produced by AI, whether current copyright rules should be applied, and presents issues raised by generative AI models. To assess how different jurisdictions deal with AI-generated content, the study analyses international legal practices, such as those in the US, EU and India. The research also examines previous court decisions and proposed legislative changes and adjustments to achieve a balance between innovation and intellectual property rights. The study aims to highlight the role of human involvement in determining whether AI-generated works are protected by legal forms, and the broader implications for productivity, fair use, licensing and copyright. This study contributes to the ongoing debate about adapting copyright law to the changing environment of AI-powered content creation, critically evaluating legal ambiguities and potential solutions.

Key words: Artificial intelligence, copyright, AI-generated content, intellectual property, legal framework, generative AI, fair use, authorship

Introduction

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) has fundamentally changed the creative industry and enables the generation of texts, images, music and even software. Large language models and generative adversarial networks (GANs) are two AI-powered models that have been proven to produce high-quality results that often rival human ingenuity. Now, however, this technological advancement raises serious ethical and legal questions, particularly with regard to intellectual property rights (IP). As AI systems contribute to the production of content without overtly assigning authority, traditional copyright laws created by the human mind are now being challenged. This change raises serious questions of ownership, such as whether copyright protection should be entrusted to an AI company, a controller, or the AI ​​itself. At a time when AI-generated works are becoming increasingly common, the lack of clear legal guidance has led to inconsistent practices across jurisdictions, making copyright enforcement difficult.[1] The fact that property rights laws in many countries, including the US, the EU and India, are based on the idea of ​​human authority presents a major legal obstacle. In a reminder that human authority is necessary for protection, the US Copyright Office, for example, refuses to register copyrighted works produced solely by AI. The European Union is actively exploring how to govern the incorporation of AI-generated material into intellectual property, while maintaining accountability and ethical issues through developing AI regulatory frameworks. Although AI-generated works are not expressly covered by copyright law in India, judicial interpretations suggest that human participation in the creative process should be prioritized. AI-generated content is often based on large amounts of content, it is difficult to apply concepts such as fair use and transformative use. Although sharing agreements and licensing frameworks are becoming increasingly popular as potential solutions, companies and content producers that rely on AI-powered content continue to ignore anomalies in regulatory laws.

AI and Copyright Ownership

AI-generated content raises complex legal, moral and financial issues, particularly with regard to the protection of property and rights. While human influence has historically been the focus of copyright law, innovations in AI are challenging traditional frameworks.

●        Authorship Attribution: Because there are many possible professions, determining the ownership rights of AI-generated works remains highly controversial. Although some argue that AI should be treated in its own right, current rules do not give it legal status because it lacks legal personality. Ownership can be claimed by AI developers or companies that create and train AI models, claiming that their knowledge and capital are the basis of the content that the AI ​​produces.[2] Because their contributions affect the resulting work, the end user or creator can also be considered the copyright holder. Based on their individual contributions, some propose a common ownership model that divides rights between AI developers, users, and providers. Companies can also create employment contracts that clearly outline ownership terms for AI-generated content, similar to what they will do with snippets.

●        Legal Challenges in Existing Copyright Frameworks: AI-generated work raises serious legal issues compared to current laws, primarily because it requires human authority. Only human-created content is worthy of protection, as the U.S. Copyright Office has repeatedly denied copyright to works created solely by AI. Although AI-generated works are not explicitly covered by copyright law, judicial interpretations may favor human participation in the creative process.[3] To integrate AI-generated works while maintaining legal responsibility, the European Union is actively working on AI and intellectual property legislation. Additionally, copyright enforcement is becoming increasingly difficult in the AI ​​era as AI builds models based on big data that often contain copyrighted content, addressing questions of illegal derivative works and fair use interpretations.

●        Economic and ethical implications for creative industries: For the creative industry, the use of AI in content creation raises serious ethical and economic questions. The threat to human creativity is a major concern as AI-generated writing, music and art could reduce the need for human creators, which will impact career expectations. AI's reliance on previously published work also raises concerns about plagiarism and originality, raising questions about whether AI's results are truly unique or merely automated reproduction. Another pressing issue is the devaluation of artistic creations, as the widespread creation of AI-generated objects can diminish the value of literature, journalism, and other human-made art forms. AI's ability to imitate voices, artificiality and likeness also raises ethical concerns about identity theft and illegal impersonation.

●        AI and Copyright Enforcement Issues: As AI technologies improve, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between human-created content and AI-generated content, and investigating AI-generated content poses significant challenges for both AI and copyright enforcement. Additionally, AI companies are exploring models for using legal resources to design, license, and brand agreements as viable alternatives. However, creating a consistent regulatory framework for AI-generated content will challenge jurisdictions, as conflicting national laws create barriers to its application.

Legal Perspectives on AI-Generated Content

Other jurisdictions have addressed the key legal challenges posed by AI in different ways as it continues to gain traction in the creative and commercial sectors. A fundamental question remains whether AI-generated works can be covered by copyright laws, which are typically aimed at protecting human creation. Legal responses in the US, EU and India reflect different perspectives on authority, ownership and the role of human intervention in AI-generated works.

1. United States

We have often emphasized that human authority is necessary for copyright protection under the Copyright Act of 1976. According to the U.S. Copyright Office Compendium of Practices, works created solely by computers without the control of a human creator are not protected by copyright. This idea harkens back to earlier interpretations of copyright law, which historically gave authority to ingenuity and intelligence. The development of generative AI technology in recent years has made an important statement for the United States. Copyright Office. AI-generated content can only be copyrighted if someone had creative control over the final product, according to new regulations issued by the office in March 2013.

Thaler v. Perlmutter: A Landmark Case on AI Copyright

Stephen Thaler, an AI researcher and advocate of machine-generated creativity, in Thaler v. Perlmutter, one of the largest legal controversies surrounding AI-generated content in the United States.[4] “A Recent Entry in Paradise” is the title of the work for which Thaler has applied for copyright registration. It was made by an artificial intelligence system, a “creative machine.” Thaler demanded that AI should have the rights and trust the author. The United States Copyright Office rejected his request, saying the work lacked human authority. Thaler then filed suit in federal court against the Copyright Office, arguing that AI-generated works should be protected by copyright. However, in August 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the Copyright Office's decision and ruled that human authority was the prerogative of copyright protection. The court emphasized that Congress should pass laws to protect AI-generated works, because American law always aims to create a human right.

Implications of the Decision

Industries such as entertainment, publishing and marketing that rely on AI-generated content were disrupted by the Thaler v. Perlmutter, who supports the view that AI is not protected by copyright under current law. Since human participation is required to be eligible for copyright, the case shows that AI-powered works can be permissible if a human has significant creative control over the final result. However, works generated entirely by AI and produced without human intervention remain in the public domain. This ruling highlights the need for legal reform to address the evolving issues that artificial intelligence raises in copyright law as AI-generated content becomes more common.

2. European Union

The European Union (EU) takes a human-centered approach to copyright law, declaring that only works created with human assistance are eligible for intellectual protection. AI-generated content is not protected by copyright under EU rules unless a human significantly contributed to its creation. However, the EU is actively examining whether legal reforms are needed to address new legal challenges as AI-generated services become more widespread.

Current legal framework: Human authority is essential

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Digital Single Market Directive (2019/790) are the main laws governing EU copyright law. Both laws require that the work be made of human intellectual creation, a requirement that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has repeatedly confirmed in its decisions.[5]

Key Principles of EU Copyright Law Regarding AI

Necessity of human origin - The ECJ ruled that only works that reflect the original intellectual creativity of the author can be protected. AI-generated content that lacks direct human input fails this test.

There is no property right for AI-generated works: AI lacks human design and creativity, works generated by AI cannot be considered original at all and are therefore not protected by copyright.

Human Contribution and Copyright Eligibility: A work can be protected by copyright if a person contributes a lot to its creation. Meaningful people must exercise creative control over the work of the work.

Alternative Legal Protections for AI-Generated Content

The EU Copyright Directive grants certain rights (neighboring rights) to certain companies, such as producers, broadcasters and database creators, allowing companies that develop AI-generated content to claim neighboring rights if they demonstrate a significant investment in the creation and distribution of content. Another type of legal protection applicable to works created by AI is the right to a specific type of database set out in the EU Database Directive (96/9/EC) and the protection of databases resulting from a significant investment in the collection, confirmation or deletion of data. This means that AI-generated databases may be protectable even if individual AI-generated content is not protected by copyright.[6] Companies can protect their proprietary content from AI systems for commercial use under the EU Trade Secrets Directive (2016/943) as exclusive and confidential in situations of intense competition. Companies involved in the creation of AI knowledge may feel reasonably safe because of these alternative legal protections, which also help overcome the legal ambiguities surrounding AI-generated work.

The Artificial Intelligence Act and Future Copyright Reforms

The framework for regulating high-risk AI applications, such as: B. AI systems used in the creative industry is covered by the EU's Artificial Intelligence Law, which is expected to be completed in 2025, but does not specifically address copyright issues caused by AI. The law has sparked controversy over the need for a new set of regulations specifically designed for AI-generated work, although its primary focus is on ethical issues, transparency and governance. The proposed changes to possible laws arise as awareness grows that current intellectual property laws do not adequately address the complexity of AI-generated works, as AI continues to impact content creation. In response to these questions, several future innovations are being considered. As long as there is significant human involvement in the creative process, the EU can introduce a hybrid copyright system that protects works created with AI assistance. A possible addition would be the introduction of AI-specific intellectual property rights, which would create a separate legal category for AI-produced content that is not governed by traditional rules. In addition, related rights can be expanded, giving more protection to companies that invest in AI-generated content and ensuring the preservation of economic and creative contributions. If implemented, these changes can help strike a balance between advancing technology and maintaining fair copyright laws in a rapidly changing digital environment.

Implications for Businesses and Creators

How the EU handles AI and copyright laws has a major impact on how companies and manufacturers deal with the changing legal environment. One notable effect is that information generated entirely by AI remains in the public domain, meaning companies cannot claim losses from AI creation alone unless significant human ingenuity is also involved. Because it limits your ability to assert exclusive rights to such content, this limitation raises the issue of industries such as editorial, marketing and entertainment relying on AI-generated content. The existing approach also encourages intervention in AI-generated content to obtain copyright protection, encouraging AI-creative activity. As a result, creative teams could adopt hybrid approaches where AI acts as a tool rather than a sole creator.[7] Despite these incentives, more detailed regulations are still required as AI technologies develop. To address new issues, such as placing barriers to human participation in AI-powered works and how rights should be distributed in AI-generated collaborations, the EU needs to update its copyright rules. For fair protection of intellectual property rights, future legal reforms may further influence how companies use AI in creative industries.

3. India

Legal Framework for Copyright in India

The Copyright Act, 1957, which aims to protect the rights of intellectual authors in various fields such as software, recordings, theatre, music, art and literature, is the fundamental basis of copyright law in India. The basic principle of Indian copyright law presupposes the creative authority of humans, which means that a work created by a human must be protected by copyright.

Definition of "Author" in the Copyright Act 1957: Establishing authorship is an important part of copyright protection because it is essential to verify ownership and rights to a creative work.

Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act 1957 defines "author" as a person who creates a work, thus reinforcing the principle that property is associated with human property.[8] If we want only ordinary people to be recognized as authors, this definition essentially denies copyright to non-human entities such as artificial intelligence (AI).

By the same law, different types of works have specific definitions of authority;

In literary or artistic works, the author is the person who creates the work.

In the case of a film, the author is considered the creator.

In terms of my career, who is the worthiest author of my career?

For sound recordings, the producer or composer of the sound is the author.

Ownership of Copyright under Section 17

In the case of a work under an employment contract or committed to a specific purpose, copyright may vest in the owner or the client and not in the individual authors, as in art. 17 is exposed. But the author is usually the "original owner" of the copyrighted work. Since AI is neither an employee nor a legal entity with the capacity to enter into contracts, this principle cannot be transferred to AI. It applies only to human workers and allows the employer to claim ownership of work created in the course of the employment relationship. For example, a company may own the rights to a work of art created by a graphic designer using the company's artificial intelligence software.

Challenges in Recognizing AI-Generated Works under Copyright Law

●        Absence of Human Authorship: Works created solely by AI without any human involvement are not eligible for protection under the Copyright Act 1957 as the law specifically requires a human author. This could hinder innovation and investment in AI-generated creative work by creating a loophole where companies and creators using AI-powered materials could not claim exclusive rights to their products.

●        Ownership Dilemma for AI-Generated Works: Under the Indian Law, the question of owning the work created by AI is still up for debate. It is unclear who should have the property rights when an AI system creates an original work of writing, art or music: the creator of the AI, the person who operates it, or the company that owns the AI ​​system. Currently, Indian law is unclear as to how ownership should be assigned in these circumstances, as AI is not a legal entity and cannot command its own rights.

●        Lack of Judicial Precedents: Since Indian courts have not yet ruled on AI-generated content cases, it is unclear whether ownership law will apply to AI-generated works. Indian courts should adopt a similar human-centred approach to copyright protection based on comparisons with international decisions such as Thaler v. Perlmutter in the US, where a court rejected copyright protection for AI-generated works.

●        Potential Public Domain Status: Works generated by artificial intelligence can automatically enter the public domain if someone freely copies, adapts and distributes them without human authorization. This could pose a major problem for companies investing in AI-powered creative media, as their content would not be able to enjoy exclusive legal protection and it would be difficult to control distribution and monetize AI-generated works.[9]

Ethical and Practical Implications

●        Fair Use and Licensing: Conventional fair use will not be sufficient to address the complexity of AI-generated content as these technologies become more widely used in the production of creative works. Under copyright law, fair use allows limited use of copyrighted works, such as for educational, critical, or commentary purposes. However, since AI has no legal personality and is not a human creator, the question of authority becomes unclear when it comes to works produced by AI. This raises a fundamental question: Can AI-produced content be considered the same as human-produced data if it meets fair standards? Works produced by AI may not be directly subject to licensing agreements often associated with human authority. New licensing structures can be developed to consider the role of AI in the creative process. One possible solution would be to develop licensing structures that consider the AI, tools or services generated as a new type of intellectual property.

●        Legal changes: AI cannot possess intellectual property rights because it is not a legal entity and the current structure of property rights is firmly based on the authority of human rights. As AI-generated works become more common, there will likely be legislative changes to the copyright system to support new creative methods. To recognize both human creativity and AI-driven innovation, these changes may include amending existing laws or developing entirely new types of protection for works by AI creators.[10] One such transition could be the development of hybrid ownership systems that enable the protection of AI-generated works under conventional law and essential human rights. For example, collaborative works created with AI tools can still grant authority and rights to human producers.

●        Democratizing AI creativity: By lowering the barriers to entry for creative content, AI has the potential to democratize creativity. Using AI, individuals and small organizations that did not have access to software or skilled labour in the past can now produce high-quality work. This can lead to greater differentiation of inclusive and diverse voices in areas such as media, arts and entertainment. There is also the question of whether AI-generated content can replace human ownership or lead to generic communication. One of the biggest challenges is finding a balance between encouraging creativity and preserving the importance of human art.

●        Responsibility and ethical care: The question of responsibility arises as AI systems become more autonomous in creating tasks. If AI-generated content is found to violate ethical standards, violate pre-existing orders, or cause harm (e.g., profound or offensive material), who is responsible? This makes it clear that liability regulations are necessary. Should the company that controls the AI ​​system, the user who created it, or the AI ​​developer be responsible for any legal consequences? To ensure that the creation of AI-powered content remains seamless and transparent, it is important to create a legal framework that allocates liability in these situations.

●        Impact of conventional copyright sectors: AI-generated content has the potential to establish established library areas such as publishing, music and film. To organize the creation, distribution, and sale of creative works, these parties relied on historically based systems of authority and human ownership.[11] In fields like music, where AI systems can distinguish compositions from human music, or writing, where AI can produce entire books, AI can test these ideas. This can create new opportunities, but also for the renewal of the current economic structure and the functions of human beings, artists and human creators.

●        AI developers have intellectual property rights: The need to recognize the intellectual property rights of AI developers will increase as AI systems evolve. The models that generate AI-generated content are typically designed and installed by AI developers, who often invest a lot of time and money in the process.[12] Developers are trying to claim ownership of intellectual property from the use of their AI systems because AI is incapable of owning property rights. Therefore, new questions may arise regarding the ownership of AI-generated work: by the user, the developer, or both. To ensure fair compensation and legal protection for collaborative work between humans and AI, the rights of AI developers must be more clearly defined in the copyright system.

Conclusion

Traditional intellectual property law poses a difficult challenge for emerging AI-generated works and raises important questions about authority, ownership and protection. Existing copyright systems, historically based on the concept of human authority, face significant challenges as artificial intelligence systems become increasingly capable of performing creative tasks without direct intervention. While some countries are making progress in creating frameworks for AI-generated content, much more is needed as jurisdictions such as the US, EU and India grapple with the legal implications of this new phenomenon. The need for enforcement is complicated by the lack of clear and consistent laws in many jurisdictions, putting businesses, artists and legal systems in a precarious position. AI-generated works risk falling into the public domain or receiving unequal protection in the absence of clear legal guidelines, reducing incentives for investment and innovation in the creative industries. Intellectual property rules will need to change as AI technology evolves to address the unique problems that AI-generated content presents. Possible improvements include the creation of new categories of intellectual property, especially AI works, the development of hybrid copyright models, and the development of related rights to protect investors in AI technologies. In addition, supporting a sustainable environment by addressing the fair and ethical involvement of AI in the creative sector to ensure equal access to opportunities and prevent the displacement of human creators. How AI-generated works are handled and how the ever-evolving digital age balances innovation, ownership and ethical considerations will be heavily influenced by ongoing legal debates and upcoming reforms.

[1] U.S. Copyright Office, "Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices," § 306 (3rd ed. 2021).

[2] T. P. Jones, "Intellectual Property and AI: The Need for a New Legal Framework," Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, vol. 34, no. 2 (2021), at 57-60.

[3]

[4] 18 F.4th 152 (2021)

[5] European Parliament, "Artificial Intelligence: A European Approach to Excellence and Trust," Resolution (2020/2014(INI)) (2021).

[6]  European Commission, "Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Harmonized Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act)," COM (2021) 206 final (April 2021).

[7] M. Schermer, "Intellectual Property and the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Creative Works," Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 15, 2020, at 182-184.

[8] Indian Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, § 2(d), § 17,

[9] WIPO, "WIPO Technology Trends 2020: Artificial Intelligence," World Intellectual Property Organization, 2020, https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=476169.

[10] V. Srinivasan, "Artificial Intelligence and Copyright in India," Indian Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 15, 2022, at 57-58.

[11] S. R. Ravi & S. Desai, "AI and Intellectual Property: Copyright and Ownership Issues in India," Indian IP Review, vol. 11, 2021, at 233-235.

[12] S. J. Oliver, "The Challenges of Copyright Law in the Age of Artificial Intelligence," Harvard Law Review, vol. 133, no. 7 (2020), at 1980-1985.