.jpg)
Navigating the Nexus of Creativity and Code: Legal Challenges and Opportunities in AI-Generated Copyright
- Aequitas Victoria
- May 21
- 21 min read
Paper Code: AIJACLAV11RP2025
Category: Research Paper
Date of Publication: May 19, 2025
Citation: Ms. Alakammai G & Ms. Aparna Kumari, “Navigating the Nexus of Creativity and Code: Legal Challenges and Opportunities in AI-Generated Copyright", 5, AIJACLA, 95, 95-111 (2025), <https://www.aequivic.in/post/navigating-the-nexus-of-creativity-and-code-legal-challenges-and-opportunities-in-ai-generated-copy>
Author Details: Ms. Alakammai G, 9th SEM BALLB, Christ Academy Institute Of Law, Bengaluru &
Ms. Aparna Kumari, 9th SEM BALLB, Christ Academy Institute Of Law, Bengaluru
Abstract
The advent of AI has blurred the boundaries between human ingenuity and machine precision. The incapacity of artificial intelligence to understand the essence of creativity has had a profound effect on the creative process, impacting the creation of artistic, musical, and literary works. With the advancement of AI, it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between human creativity and computer accuracy. This paper titled, “ Navigating the Nexus of Creativity and Code: Legal Challenges and Opportunities in AI-Generated Copyright”, delves into the delicate aspects of creativity and code, focusing on the legal challenges posed by AI-generated works, in the context of IPR laws, specifically, copyright.
The paper explores the concept of authorship and the criteria for copyright protection, questioning the application of traditional laws concerning AI-generated creations. It examines landmark cases and international practices, shedding light on inconsistencies in existing copyright laws. Furthermore, this paper highlights opportunities to adapt copyright law to the evolving technological landscape, including proposals for new legal frameworks, policies promoting transparency in AI systems, and collaborative frameworks for resolving disputes. By addressing these issues, this study intends to contribute to a balanced copyright system that fosters innovation while protecting the rights of creators in an era increasingly influenced by Artificial Intelligence.
KEYWORDS: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright law, Authorship and ownership, Intellectual property innovation, Machine-generated works.
INTRODUCTION
AI’s progression has single-handedly transformed various sectors, and it partakes in hybridization with other fields as well. For instance, it can produce art, music, or even literature, which were primarily produced by humans. This intermingling of creativity and coding has created multifaceted problems in law, especially in copyright. As the distinction of machine-created versus human-created content blurs, it creates many problems, one being authorship and ownership and whether any existing laws around intellectual property are useful.
The broad field of Artificial Intelligence has made serious changes to creativity by displacing the traditional concepts around authorship and copyright protection. The legal and ethical aspects of AI-created songs, movies, sketches, books, and designs demand attention because the line between human creativity and robot accuracy has shifted. The already existing systems of copyright protection designed to defend human creativity are now finding it impossible to adapt to the reality where AI is creating content.
The issue remains about whether works produced by AI are eligible for copyright and if they are, who the owner is; the AIs system, the developer of the AI system or the user who is utilizing it. Thaler v. Perlmutter[1] and Shenzhen Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun [2]one of the many cases that stood out due to competing legal views, have adjudicated this matter without deciding on a single legal standard. The law in some places still does find an author of copyright to be a natural person; in other places steps are being taken toward accepting AI generated content.
The article “Navigating the Nexus of Creativity and Code: Legal Challenges and Opportunities in AI-Generated Copyright” intends to analyse and understand these imperatives, focusing more on how the corresponding laws, and AI copyright laws, work in India. It delves into the issues of authorship and ownership claims AI poses and examines possible updates in legislation along with best global practices within the context of the ever-changing role of AI in the world of creativity. The aim is to shed light on how legislation can adjust to the changes brought upon by technology while balancing to protect the interests of creators.
2.1. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
● To analyse the applicability of existing copyright laws in India concerning AI-generated works.
● To examine the nature of AI generated creativity and its implications for authorship and ownership.
● To identify key legal challenges in granting copyright protection to AI-generated content.
● To explore potential legal reforms and international best practices for harmonizing AI and copyright laws.
2.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
● How does the current copyright framework in India address AI-generated works, and what gaps exist?
● What distinguishes AI-generated creativity from human creativity in the context of intellectual property rights?
● What are the major legal and ethical challenges associated with AI-generated copyright protection?
● How can international legal frameworks and best practices guide India in adapting its copyright laws for AI-generated content?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The subject is referred across various secondary material resources to understand the problems, needs, approaches, and possible solutions. The points gathered from such references were arranged sequentially to logically have some approach to the analysis objects of the chosen subject. Further, each of such points is studied in detail to have a deeper understanding on the selected subject. With the help of the deeper analytic points and main points, the research has been conducted, the study has been preceded.
4. COPYRIGHT LAW IN INDIA AND AI
Since its independence, India has grown into a global power, in terms of globalization and technological advancements. Presently, India has become the IT hub of the world.[3] Due to this, there has been a rapid growth in technology in recent times- but it does not come as a conqueror, it is coming as a creator.[4]
4.1. MEANING OF COPYRIGHT
Copyright is an intellectual property. It is the right given to a creator of literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic work and a producer of cinematograph films, translations and adaptations of works, and sound recordings. It also applies to architectural works and computer program/software. It is a bundle of rights given to the creator that includes, the right of reproduction, communication, adaptation, and translation of the work.[5] The Copyright Act, 1957 along with the Copyright Rules, governs the laws related to copyright protection in India.
The term ‘copyright’ in its narrow sense usually refers to the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works. The term ‘authors’ rights’ is sometimes used in civil law jurisdictions. Precisely, it can be believed that copyright also includes ‘related rights’. Copyright includes all forms of literary-artistic works, in its ambit and it grants special rights and privileges to the creators as such.[6] In Sulmangalam R. Jayalakshmi and another v. Meta Musicals, Chennai and others,[7] The Madras High Court observed that the right that a person acquires in a work that is the result of his intellectual labour is called his copyright. Copyright law's primary function is to protect the fruits of a man’s work, labour, skill, or test from annexation by other people.
The main principles and fundamentals of the Copyright Law include:-
● ORIGINALITY: It means that the work must be the result of the author’s creative effort and not a mere copy of existing materials.
● FIXED FORM: The work must be fixed in a tangible medium to be eligible for protection. It can include writing, recording or saving in digital format.
● EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Copyright law also grants exclusive rights to the creators, which includes, the right to reproduce, distribute, perform, and assign their work. It enables the creators to control how their creations are used, except for cases like fair use or other legally allowed exceptions.
● LIMITED DURATION: Copyright protection has a limited duration, granting the copyright holder exclusive rights for a specific period, which varies by duration, Typically, it extends for the author’s lifetime plus an additional 50 to 70 years. After this timeframe, the work becomes accessible to the public and available for use by everyone.
● FAIR USE: A fair use or restricted use of copyrighted material is permitted. According to Section 52 of The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, fair use is permitted for activities such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, and research. Fair use is a major and context-dependent concept, granting certain considerations like the purpose and nature of the use, the copyrighted work’s characteristics, the amount used, and its impact on the market.[8]
4.2. ADVENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
AI-generated content refers to written text, video, code, audio, and other media produced by generative AI tools. These machines are manually and professionally trained on various aspects and on large amounts of data, allowing them to create relevant outputs in response to a word, phrase, question, or other kind of input.
AI-generated content can be defined as "written text, video, code, audio, and other media produced by generative AI tools.’ [9]
There is a high probability of the rise of legal issues when human creativity and machine-generated work collide, especially concerning copyright ownership. When a human and an AI collaborate on creative work, the legal protection depends on the extent of human contribution. In general, copyright law only covers the parts the humans created if the contributions from AI and humans can be clearly distinguished. However, when human input is deeply integrated with AI outputs, copyright eligibility depends on the level of human control and influence over the final work. A substantial creative contribution by the human is typically required for copyright protection to apply. “It needs to be an authorial kind of contribution,” Gervais said, “In that case, the fact that you worked with a machine would not exclude copyright protection.”[10]
The use of Artificial Intelligence has expanded over the past few decades. This has resulted in a significant increase in its capabilities and applications, worldwide. Before the advent of AI, digital media underwent manipulations. Photoshop, introduced in 1988, revolutionized the world of image editing, allowing users to alter photos in ways that were previously impossible.[11] However, these manual manipulations were time-consuming and required significant expertise.
The advent of technology and advanced machine learning, particularly deep learning, has marked a significant shift in content creation. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), introduced by Goodfellow et al. in 20146, brought about a new era where machines could produce images that were often indistinguishable from real ones. Deepfakes, heinous creations by misuse of technology, enabled the synthesis of hyper-realistic but entirely fabricated video content.[12] For instance, the film industry started exploring these tools for de-aging actors, as seen in movies like "The Irishman". [13]
The use of Artificial Intelligence by the current generation has increased tremendously. AI-driven content creation has become an integral part of daily life, extending beyond specialized industries. Intelligent chatbots, utilizing advanced language models, now handle customer service interactions, compose emails, and generate written content, including news articles.[14] On the more business-oriented and commercial side, brands use AI to create targeted advertising campaigns, and they generate content personalized and tailored to individual customers.[15] However, despite these advantages, there have also been instances of misuse. In the political sphere, manipulated media, such as deepfake technology, has been utilized to disseminate misinformation, raising concerns about the credibility of information sources and eroding public trust in prominent figures.
The impact of AI-generated content goes beyond the legal and ethical implications. It impacts society and the economy as a whole. The creative sector’s dependency on new systems of AI has resulted in fear of job losses, originality, and art’s authenticity. AI provides efficiency and innovative solutions, but also both complicates and challenges traditional measures of authorship and intellectual property rights. Furthermore, the speed at which technology is advancing makes it difficult to develop effective regulatory approaches, which results in a legal limbo for works produced by an AI system. Solving this issue requires reconciling the need to promote innovation, while simultaneously providing adequate measures to reserve rights for any human contributions.
5. UNDERSTANDING AI-GENERATED CREATIVITY
“ Creativity is the power to connect, the seemingly, unconnected. It is the function of creative people to perceive relations between thoughts, or things, or forms of expressions that seem utterly different, and to be able to Connect the seemingly Unconnected ” [16]
Creativity involves more than just linking different ideas. It requires a deep, imagination and intuitive understanding that goes beyond mere patterns. Human Creativity thrives on integrating disconnected thoughts into breakthrough innovations- a quality that generative AI, pre-trained with reproductive data, fails to achieve.
While AI excels at producing and remixing existing patterns, it lacks the emotional depth and intuitive understanding necessary for the originality of the creation. This limitation gives rise the crucial question of if AI can truly emulate the essence of human creativity or merely copy existing literary and artistic works without any individual innovation. To replicate human creativity, generative AI must be developed beyond its current limitations by developing cognitive models that give uniqueness to one’s creations.
The Generative AI which is trained majorly by historical data, is fundamentally limited by its reliance on pre-existing patterns and information. This limitation means that while AI can replicate and remix already existing creations with a pinch of self-precision, it fails to develop truly innovative and novel ideas that break free from historical constraints. True creativity involves not only the ability to recognize patterns but also, it must develop a nuanced understanding of human creativity from dynamic methods of understanding the true essence of human inspiration that forms the basis for true novelty.
5.1. GENERATIVE AI AND ITS IMPACT ON HUMAN CREATIVITY
Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and Midjourney use machine learning models trained on large data sets to generate text, images or music based on recognized patterns. These tools make predictions and produce results based on pre-trained patterns rather than real creative thinking. Studies comparing AI-generated creations and human creations have shown that while AI can create a large number of ideas, human creativity often produces more original and innovative creations.[17]
AI tools can replace human creativity by providing different ideas and improving brainstorming processes, soon. Overreliance on AI could hinder individual and human creative development.
While some see AI as a valuable tool for speeding up early concept creation, others fear that the human element in creative processes will be lost. The combination of human ingenuity and AI capabilities can lead to a more diverse and comprehensive art. AI refines the evaluation process by analysing factors such as originality, feasibility, specificity, impact, and practicality, thereby supporting more efficient decision-making. Generative AI’s true value lies not in replacing human ingenuity but in augmenting collaborative efforts to develop solutions previously considered unattainable.
Generative AI can help with the development a degeneration of ideas but does not contribute to the deep, innovative thinking that is a mandate for novel creativity. Traditional design tools such as sketching encourage both creativity and thinking but, despite its potential, generative AI struggles with the creation of novel designs, which are essential for true originality of creations.
AI excels at processing data and automating tasks but lacks the emotional depth and intuitive understanding inherent in human creativity. Human creativity, driven by emotions and personal experience, enables unique problem-solving and innovation but is constrained by time and physical limitations. The future will likely lie in increased collaboration between artificial intelligence and human creativity, leveraging the data processing capabilities of artificial intelligence while retaining the human touch in creative endeavours. AI is great for processing data and automating repetitive tasks, but struggles with emotional depth and developing truly new ideas.[18] Concerns were raised that generative AI could lead to greater homogeneity of content in the publishing industry if used on a large scale. [19]
Generative AI must get past its present constraints by creating cognitive models that closely resemble the brain's capacity to combine unrelated ideas into original notions to accurately replicate human creativity. This entails creating neural network topologies that mimic the complex interconnections and cognitive flexibility mechanisms found in the brain. For AI to identify patterns and make significant connections between concepts that don't seem to be connected, such architectures must be able to reason analogically. The kind of creative synthesis that defines human creativity may be fostered by training AI across a variety of disciplines using multidisciplinary datasets and multi-modal learning techniques.
Furthermore, incorporating factors of human instinct and emotion is vital for AI to obtain a degree of creativity similar to humans. Affective computing, which entails the improvement of structures that can recognize, interpret, and simulate human emotions, can offer AI a deeper knowledge of the nuances and subtleties inherent. Intuition simulation, wherein AI structures are designed to imitate the heuristic and non-linear questioning styles of humans, is every other essential aspect. By integrating these elements, AI could move beyond mere replication of existing patterns and begin to generate truly novel ideas that resonate on a more profound, emotional level.
6. LEGAL CHALLENGES WITH AI-GENERATED COPYRIGHT
Now we can generate new content with the help of many apps, websites, and tools that are available very easily for users and we just need to put a prompt and feed these apps and tools with the existing information and instruct them to modify the content as a new creation. And then we are given with the new creation that is different. As AI systems evolve, they can create literature, art, music, and other forms of expression.
Legal Challenges in AI-Generated Copyright
The authorship and ownership issue
One of the most crucial challenges in AI-generated copyrights is identifying the author. Originally, copyright law granted protection to authors who created original works using their skill, efforts, and shrewdness. However, AI- generated works confuses this framework because they may be created independently without human involvement
Possible solution debated internationally incorporates
● The copyright system should identify authorship for AI
● Assigning authorship to either the program or the user.
● AI-generated work should not have authorship and should be classified as part of the public domain
● Creation of sui generis rather than copyright law to protect such works
In express newspaper plex v. Liverpool daily pst & Echo[20]
the court considered computer as a tool in the same manner as a pen is regarded as a tool. In the United States also, the author of a work which is created with the help of AI may have copyright if he/she establishes that the AI program was used as a tool/medium in the creation of the work.[21]
The US court ruled in Naruto v. Slater[22] sometimes referred to as the "Monkey Selfie" case, that the monkey could not be regarded as the author.of the selfies that it took. In united states, only human authors are entitled and allowed for their copyright and not machines or animals.
Innovation and creativity:
Copyright law protects the work that usually original, exclusive, and the outcome of human creativity . AI-generated works tend to be generated by algorithms that learn from existing data and produce new content based on patterns.
Correcting liability in certain infringed cases
Ai- generated content may rewrite the original copyrighted work , causing infringement concerns. Since AI is not a legal person, determining culpability becomes challenging. Who would be responsible for infringement when AI-generated works are strikingly like already-existing copyrighted works? This presents another difficulty.
Moral Rights
Another crucial subject is the application of moral rights, which protect the author's individual rights, such as the right to credit and the right to maintain the integrity of the work. The ability of AI to assert moral rights as an entity without moral consciousness leads to further problems.
7. OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE LEGAL ADAPTATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
Artificial intelligence is transforming by creating the art, music, and literature on a scale never previously possible. However, human-focused copyright laws persist, which raises issues regarding responsibility, ownership, and protection of artificial intelligence-generated works. Without a clear legal framework in place, innovation is hindered and stakeholders are put at risk. This study looks at the legal options for future changes to address these problems.
Developing an AI-Generated Work Sui Generis Framework
Creating a sui generis legal framework specifically for AI-generated works is a promising strategy. A sui generis system would acknowledge AI achievements with safeguards, in contrast to ordinary copyright law, which bestows rights based on human innovation. A precedent is set by the EU Database Directive (Directive 96/9/EC), which gives database developers legal protection. For AI-generated works, a comparable approach might provide limited-duration rights (e.g., 5–10 years) to strike a compromise between public access and innovation incentives.
Empowering Human Investors Copyright Ownership
Determining the ownership of works created by AI is essential because AI does not have legal persons. One potential remedy is to designate authorship to: The algorithm was programmed by the AI developer. the AI user who enters parameters and data.The AI system's funding organization. The person who makes the essential preparations for AI-generated works is recognized as the author by Section 9(3) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988). This model's global expansion would guarantee responsibility and make ownership clear.
Establishing mechanisms for ai liability and accountability
Clear responsibility frameworks are necessary because AI may unintentionally produce information that is unethical or infringing. Among the legal tools could be:bringing users or developers to account for copyright infringements caused by AI.establishing regulatory compliance oversight organizations for AI. establishing mandatory transparency standards to guarantee that AI-generated content is properly labelled.The 2017 report on AI and robotics by the European Parliament recommends treating AI as an "electronic person," however the majority of states oppose giving AI legal personhood.[23]
Integration of international copyright guidelines
A uniform international framework is crucial given AI's worldwide reach. WIPO and the WTO, among other organizations, should: Create international copyright regulations for AI. Encourage the enforcement of copyright internationally. Encourage openness and ethics standards for AI. The continuing AI and copyright conversations at WIPO serve as a basis for global collaboration.[24].
Managing ai-generated misinformation and deepfakes
AI-powered deepfake technology poses significant moral and legal issues. Future legislation ought to: Require mandatory disclosure for media produced by artificial intelligence. Enact stringent permission regulations for the use of AI-generated images. Boost enforcement against false information generated by AI. Platforms are currently required to mark AI-generated material under the EU Digital Services Act (2022).[25]
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES AND HARMONIZATION
The rapid growth of AI as a tool for the creation of content has given rise to increased enforcement mechanisms by governments worldwide, to prevent such an activity by AI. These adaptations vary in its nature, influenced by distinct legal traditions, cultural considerations and technological factors in different countries.
In the European Union, recent updates to the Copyright Directive reflect an effort to respond to digital and AI growth. The European Union (EU) has addressed this issue through policy proposals and legislative reforms.[26] Recognizing the rapid advancement of AI technologies and their impact on the creative sector, the EU has initiated several directives aimed at updating and harmonizing copyright laws across member states to accommodate the new realities of digital and AI-driven creation. Conversely, nations such as China and the United States have started to acknowledge AI's role in content creation through evolving legislative and policy discussions. While these initiatives mark a step toward legal recognition, they remain in early stages and continue to generate debate regarding the optimal regulatory approach. [27]
Jaan has initiated public consultations and research programs to examine AI’s effects on creative industries and copyright administrations.[28]
Similarly, the UK's Intellectual Property Office has conducted consultations with industry stakeholders, publishing reports that explore AI’s implications for intellectual property rights, signalling a movement towards informed legal adaptation.[29]
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), plays a crucial role in providing international discourse on AI and Copyright. The Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), established under WIPO, explores policy issues concerning Generative AI works, to ensure global safety standards.[30]
The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886, sets forth foundational standards for copyright protection. It is one of the oldest legislations governing Copyright laws and it gives protection to Copyright holders, internationally.
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), under the World Trade Organization (WTO), establishes global intellectual property standards, influencing how nations shape their AI and copyright laws to ensure compliance.[31]
Countries worldwide collaborate to establish common standards and principles in addressing AI's impact on copyright. A shared understanding of terminology, concepts, and legal frameworks aids in creating a cohesive international approach. Jurisdictions conduct comparative analyses of their AI and copyright laws, examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches.[32] Beyond governmental actions, industries and companies, content creators and legal experts actively participate in global discussions to address the ongoing challenges and contribute to the shaping of International Copyright Laws. [33]
Despite these collaborative efforts, differences in legal traditions, cultural perspectives, and the pace of technological adoption contribute to diverse approaches. Achieving a truly harmonized international framework remains a complex task. The ongoing dialogue at the international level reflects the commitment to adapting copyright laws to the realities of AI while striving for a balance between innovation and protection.
CONCLUSION
While there are many legal and regulatory advancement prospects at the nexus of AI and copyright, there are also many complicated legal hurdles. A proactive legal framework is necessary to guarantee equitable protection and incentives for both human and AI-generated works as AI continues to redefine creativity. While guaranteeing minimum monopolization, a sui generis legal framework designed for AI-generated material may aid in closing the current gaps. Clearer rules about copyright ownership should also be put in place, assigning legal authorship to users, developers, or organizations based on the degree of human engagement.To handle the dangers connected with AI-generated infringing and unethical content, a clear liability and accountability framework is required, guaranteeing that accountability can be tracked down and enforced. Under the supervision of WIPO and the WTO, global copyright law harmonization can promote standard legal principles and international collaboration in the handling of AI-driven copyright concerns. To control AI training on copyrighted data while maintaining the rights of original artists, updated fair use guidelines should be implemented.An ethical and well-rounded strategy is required because to the rapid improvements in AI technology, especially when it comes to controlling deepfake content and misinformation produced by AI. The dangers of AI-driven manipulation can be reduced by enforcing laws and transparency regulations. In order to create regulations that both safeguard intellectual property and advance technology, cooperation between legislators, AI developers, and international organizations will be essential going forward. In conclusion, navigating the complexity of AI-generated copyright while preserving innovation and equitable creative rights requires a dynamic, forward-thinking legal structure.
REFERENCES
10.1. BOOKS, JOURNALS AND ARTICLES
a) A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security, in 107 California Law Review 1753 (2019).
b) Copyright and AI: Redefining Authorship in the Digital Age - Legally Flawless. 25 June 2024, https://legallyflawless.in/copyright-ai-redefining-authorship-digital-age/. 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11041 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2016)\
c) Daniel Gervais, AI and Copyright: Navigating Human-Machine Collaboration (Oxford University Press 2021).
d) Duan, Y., Edwards, J., and Zhang, W., ‘Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Emerging Policy Considerations’ (2019) Journal of Intellectual Property Law 22(4), 115-136.
e) Gervais, Daniel J., The Machine As Author Iowa Law Review, Vol. 105, 2019, 2053-2106, Vanderbilt Law Research Paper No. 19-35, (March 25, 2019).
f) Jennifer Haase, ‘The Role of Generative AI in Creativity and Content Production’ (2023) Journal of Open Creativity https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100066
g) Kharina, O., Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Emerging Legal Challenges (Cambridge University Press 2019).
h) Knoll, T. & Knoll, J. (1988). Adobe Photoshop Release 1.0. Adobe Inc.
i) Mark Kermode, ‘De-Aging Robert De Niro in The Irishman’ (The Guardian, 2019)
j) Miernicki, J. and Ng, R., ‘AI and Intellectual Property: A Consultation Report by the UKIPO’ (2020) Journal of Law & Innovation 15(3), 214-230
k) Pavli, D. and Rognstad, O.A., Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Copyright (Oxford University Press 2021)
l) Peter Yu, ‘Trade Agreements and AI Copyright Law’ (2022) Journal of Intellectual Property Law 29(1), 75-102.
m) Rhiannon Williams “ AI can make you more creative—but it has limits“ MIT Technology Review, July 12, 2024 AI can make you more creative—but it has limits | MIT Technology Review 1985]FSR 306
n) Sebastian Löwe, ‘Rethinking Creative Practices: The Impact of Generative AI on Design, Design Thinking, and Content’ (Digital Product School, 2023) Rethinking Creative Practices: The Impact of Generative AI on Design, Design Thinking and Content Creation | by Dr. Sebastian Loewe | Digital Product School
o) Smith, B. (2021). The Role of AI in Modern Advertising. Journal of Marketing and Digital Trends, 2(1), 45-60.
p) Yifei Wang . Synthetic Realities in the Digital Age: Navigating the Opportunities and Challenges of AI-Generated Content. TechRxiv., August 18, 2023.
10.2. CONVENTIONS AND GOVERNMENT WEBSITES
a) “Europe Fit for the Digital Age: Commission Proposes New Rules for Digital Platforms.” European Commission - European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/https:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/commission\/presscorner\/detail\/en\/ip_20_2347. Accessed 13 Feb. 2025.
b) “European Parliament.” European Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal. Accessed 13 Feb. 2025.
c) Andres Guadamuz, 'Artificial intelligence and copyright' (WIPO MAGAZINE, October 2017)https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2017/05/article_0003.html \
d) IP and Frontier Technologies. https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/frontier_technologies/index.html. Accessed 13 Feb. 2025.
e) World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), ‘AI and Intellectual Property: International Discussions and Future Perspectives’ (2023) https://www.wipo.int/ai_ip/en/
f) World Trade Organization (WTO), ‘TRIPS Agreement and AI Regulations’ (2022) https://www.wto.org/trips_ai.
10.3. LEGISLATIONS ABD CASES\
a) Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Berne Convention (1886)
b) Indian Copyright Act, 1957
c) Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co., Ltd., (2019) Yue 03 Min Zhong No. 16974
d) Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director, United States Copyright Office, 2023 WL 5333236
e) Sulmangalam R. Jayalakshmi and another v. Meta Musicals, Chennai and others AIR 2000 MADRAS 454
10.4. NEWSPAPER REPORTS AND BLOGS
a) AI Contentfy, ‘AI vs. Human Creativity: Which One Will Win?’, (2023) (https://aicontentfy.com/en/blog/ai-vs-human-creativity-which-one-will-win
b) OpenAI Blog (2020). OpenAI’s GPT-3 Language Model: A Technical Overview. OpenAI.
c) EY India, 'How India is emerging as the world's technology and services hub' (EY, 27 January 2023) https://www.ey.com/en_in/india-at-100/how-india-is-emerging-as-the-world-s-technology-and-services-hub
[1] Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director, United States Copyright Office, 2023 WL 5333236
[2] Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co., Ltd., (2019) Yue 03 Min Zhong No. 16974
[3] EY India, 'How India is emerging as the world's technology and services hub' (EY, 27 January 2023) https://www.ey.com/en_in/india-at-100/how-india-is-emerging-as-the-world-s-technology-and-services-hub
[4] Andres Guadamuz, 'Artificial intelligence and copyright' (WIPO MAGAZINE, October 2017)https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2017/05/article_0003.html
[5] SECTION 14 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957
[6] ARTICLE 2 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Berne Convention (1886)
The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatic-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science.
[7] Sulmangalam R. Jayalakshmi and another v. Meta Musicals, Chennai and others AIR 2000 MADRAS 454
[8] SECTION 52 OF THE INDIAN COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright.
(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely,--
(a) a fair dealing with any work, not being a computer programme, for the purpose of--
(i) private or personal use, including research;
(ii) criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work;
(iii) the reporting of current events and current affairs, including the reporting of a lecture delivered in public;
Explanation.-- The storing of any work in any electronic medium for the purposes mentioned in this clause, including the incidental storage of any computer programme which is not itself in infringing copy for the said purposes, shall not constitute infringement of copyright.
[9] Yifei Wang . Synthetic Realities in the Digital Age: Navigating the Opportunities and Challenges of AI-Generated Content. TechRxiv., August 18, 2023.
[10] Gervais, Daniel J., The Machine As Author Iowa Law Review, Vol. 105, 2019, 2053-2106, Vanderbilt Law Research Paper No. 19-35, (March 25, 2019).
[11] Knoll, T. & Knoll, J. (1988). Adobe Photoshop Release 1.0. Adobe Inc.
[12] A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security, in 107 California Law Review 1753 (2019).
[13] Mark Kermode, ‘De-Aging Robert De Niro in The Irishman’ (The Guardian, 2019)
[14] OpenAI Blog (2020). OpenAI’s GPT-3 Language Model: A Technical Overview. OpenAI.
[15] Smith, B. (2021). The Role of AI in Modern Advertising. Journal of Marketing and Digital Trends, 2(1), 45-60.
[16] Quote by William Plomer
[17] Jennifer Haase, ‘The Role of Generative AI in Creativity and Content Production’ (2023)
Journal of Open Creativity https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100066
[18] AI Contentfy, ‘AI vs. Human Creativity: Which One Will Win?’, (2023) (https://aicontentfy.com/en/blog/ai-vs-human-creativity-which-one-will-win
[19] Rhiannon Williams “ AI can make you more creative—but it has limits“ MIT Technology Review, July 12, 2024 AI can make you more creative—but it has limits | MIT Technology Review
[20] [1985]FSR 306
[21] Copyright and AI: Redefining Authorship in the Digital Age - Legally Flawless. 25 June 2024, https://legallyflawless.in/copyright-ai-redefining-authorship-digital-age/.
[22] 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11041 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2016)
[23] “European Parliament.” European Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal. Accessed 13 Feb. 2025.
[24] IP and Frontier Technologies. https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/frontier_technologies/index.html. Accessed 13 Feb. 2025.
[25] “Europe Fit for the Digital Age: Commission Proposes New Rules for Digital Platforms.” European Commission - European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/https:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/commission\/presscorner\/detail\/en\/ip_20_2347. Accessed 13 Feb. 2025.
[26] Pavli, D. and Rognstad, O.A., Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Copyright (Oxford University Press 2021)
[27] Duan, Y., Edwards, J., and Zhang, W., ‘Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Emerging Policy Considerations’ (2019) Journal of Intellectual Property Law 22(4), 115-136.
[28] Kharina, O., Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Emerging Legal Challenges (Cambridge University Press 2019).
[29] Miernicki, J. and Ng, R., ‘AI and Intellectual Property: A Consultation Report by the UKIPO’ (2020) Journal of Law & Innovation 15(3), 214-230
[30] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), ‘AI and Intellectual Property: International Discussions and Future Perspectives’ (2023) https://www.wipo.int/ai_ip/en/
[31] World Trade Organization (WTO), ‘TRIPS Agreement and AI Regulations’ (2022) https://www.wto.org/trips_ai.
[32] Daniel Gervais, AI and Copyright: Navigating Human-Machine Collaboration (Oxford University Press 2021).
[33] Peter Yu, ‘Trade Agreements and AI Copyright Law’ (2022) Journal of Intellectual Property Law 29(1), 75-102.