ABSTRACT:
The pervasive impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) across various sectors has ushered in a wave of transformative opportunities, while simultaneously presenting intricate legal and ethical challenges. This article explores the profound implications of AI within the realm of Intellectual Property (IP), a domain that forms the bedrock of creativity, innovation, and ownership. The rapid evolution of AI technologies is reshaping these foundational pillars, prompting a re-examination of traditional IP frameworks. From language translation systems and facial recognition tools to generative AI and robotics, the manifestations of AI have become increasingly sophisticated in recent years. As AI systems acquire the capability to generate, manage, and even alter IP assets autonomously, questions surrounding ownership, authorship, and accountability have become more pressing. Although IP law plays a pivotal role in encouraging innovation and safeguarding AI-generated creations, it does not yet offer a comprehensive structure for the direct regulation of AI technologies themselves. As AI continues to advance at an unprecedented pace, its intersection with IP necessitates a nuanced and forward-thinking approach to address the emerging legal complexities and ethical dilemmas of this dynamic technological landscape.
KEYWORDS:
Artificial Intelligence, Technology, IPR Infringement, LLM’s, Regulations on AI, Ownership
INTRODUCTION
In today’s rapidly evolving world, technology has become an inseparable part of our daily lives—often influencing our actions both consciously and subconsciously. With each advancement, our tasks become more efficient and manageable. Yet, these technological strides also bring with them a wave of challenges, particularly in the realm of law. Among the most transformative of these innovations is artificial intelligence (AI), which has significantly reshaped various industries by performing tasks that once required human intelligence. While AI opens up vast legal opportunities, it simultaneously raises critical and complex questions that our existing legal frameworks are ill-equipped to handle.
One area profoundly impacted by AI is intellectual property (IP) law. As AI systems increasingly simulate human creativity and decision-making, they begin to blur the lines of traditional legal definitions of authorship and inventorship. Currently, most patent laws recognize only natural persons as inventors, with patent applications typically requiring the name of a human. There is no clear legal provision for AI-generated inventions or creative works. This legal gap gives rise to several pressing questions: Should governments introduce specific provisions to accommodate AI-assisted inventions? Should patent laws be amended to allow recognition of AI contributions? Is it possible to obtain copyright protection for literally or artistic works that are entirely generated by artificial intelligence? If AI manipulates an existing work and produces something new, does it amount to copyright infringement or innovation?
These questions strike at the heart of authorship, ownership, and accountability in an age where machines can autonomously create. As AI continues to evolve, so too must the legal doctrines that govern creativity and invention. The need for a nuanced, forward-thinking legal framework that balances innovation with the protection of human intellectual contributions is now more urgent than ever.
What is AI?
Artificial intelligence (AI), within the realm of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), refers to progress and utilization of computer systems with the ability of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. These activities encompass learning, reasoning, problem solving, and creativity, which could lead to the generation or application of intellectual property.
Inter-relation between AI and Intellectual property
IPR laws refer to Intellectual Property Rights laws, which are a set of legal protections granted to creations of the mind—such as inventions, artistic works, brand names, symbols, and designs. The main categories of IPR include copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret. The primary objective of these laws is to provide creators with exclusive rights over the use of their work for a specific period of time. As artificial intelligence continues to evolve, AI systems have become capable of independently designing novel drugs, creating engineering solutions, and even generating content that may be eligible for patent applications. AI’s capability to independently create works raises important inquiries about the authorship and ownership according to the Indian Copyright Act. Similarly, within the realm of patent law, the involvement of artificial intelligence in innovation is challenging established norms regarding inventorship and criteria for patentability. The swift progress is putting substantial strain on the basic principles of intellectual property legislation. One key issue that has emerged is: “Should inventions generated by AI be included under IPR laws?” At present, there is no legal provision that addresses AI-generated inventions; existing frameworks primarily recognize only human beings as inventors. This indicates that presently, only a natural person can be deemed as an inventor. The reasoning behind this lies in the nature of AI itself—it relies on data already available in the public domain, and its capabilities are largely dependent on the information it has been trained with. As a result, questions continue to arise about whether AI-generated outputs qualify for protection under current IPR frameworks.
The information AI generates has been fed into it by humans, and if AI is not independently using that data to create something entirely new, it cannot be considered an IPR infringement. With the accessibility of AI, it becomes easy for anyone to take existing work, apply some modifications or alterations using AI, and claim it as their own invention. Behind every AI-generated work, there is ultimately a human being who is best suited to be regarded as the inventor, since AI operates based on commands. Upon instructing Artificial intelligence to resolve a problem, the individual giving the instructions could be perceived as the discoverer or creator. In today’s world, where there are no concrete laws governing AI-generated works, only two approaches seem feasible: consider either rejecting the attribution of works produced by artificial intelligent or establishing accountability for the person who facilitated the creation of AI-generated work.
AI as an inventor?
The question of whether AI can be regarded as an inventor has been a topic of discussion in India. AI has introduced a new method for generating creative works, which is expected to increase the efficiency of the creative process and inspire new forms of expression—suggesting that achieving similar outcomes without this tool would require significantly more effort. This raises fundamental questions about the nature of creativity, originality, and authorship in the age of machine intelligence.
During the year, 2020, the Indian Copyright Office received an application requesting exclusive authorship of an artificial intelligence entity in creative work. This was India’s first known case where AI was claimed to be the sole author of a work, sparking debate on whether non-human entities like AI can be recognized as authors under Indian Copyright Law. Currently, the law grants authorship only to natural persons or legal entities. The Copyright Office initially rejected the application in April 2021, stating that only a human can be considered an author under the law. However, upon revision, a modified application was filed by Ankit Sahni, in which the AI was listed as a co-author alongside him. The registration was eventually granted. This development, while not setting a binding precedent, has opened the door to broader conversations about shared authorship and the evolving role of humans in AI-assisted creativity.
According to most patent laws—including India’s Patents Act, 1970, and international frameworks such as the TRIPS Agreement, US patent laws, and the European Patent Convention—only a natural person can be recognized as an inventor. This is because legal rights such as owning, assigning, or enforcing a patent require legal capacity, which only human beings and their legal representatives possess. Moreover, AI lacks the consciousness, intent, and accountability that the legal system typically associates with inventorship, making its independent recognition under current laws legally and philosophically complex.
The Indian Copyright Act 1957, safeguards original literary, artistic, musical, and dramatic works, granting exclusive rights to the creators and prohibiting unauthorized use or reproduction. This allows authors to enjoy economic benefits from their intellectual creations. However, the Act does not recognize AI as an author because the authorship is limited to natural persons and there is currently no legal framework in India that allows an AI system to be named as the creator or owner of a copyrighted work. This legislative gap has created ambiguity in cases where AI plays a significant or even dominant role in the creation of content, and it highlights the need for India to consider reforms that reflect emerging realities in technology and innovation.
CASE STUDIES
Case: Thaler v. comptroller-general of patents (UK)
In the landmark case involving Dr. Stephen Thaler, the scientist developed an artificial intelligence system known as DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) and filed patent applications for inventions allegedly generated autonomously by the AI. In these applications, Dr. Thaler named DABUS as the Inventor. However, the UK Intellectual Property Office, through the decision of the Hearing Officer acting on behalf of the Comptroller-General of Patents, rejected the applications. It held that, under Section 7 of the UK Patents Act 1977, only a natural person can be recognized as an inventor, and a machine does not meet this legal requirement. Additionally, Dr. Thaler was found to lack the entitlement to apply for patents on behalf of an autonomous AI. Dr. Thaler appealed the decision, ultimately bringing the case before the UK Supreme Court in 2023, where a five-judge bench unanimously upheld the earlier rulings, affirming that only a human being can be named as an inventor under UK patent law, and thereby confirming the rejection of the patent applications.
Ankit Sahni an artist and lawyer commissioned an AI based tool that generates artistic works by name RAGHAV (‘Robust Artificially Intelligent Graphics and Art Visualizer’) in 2020. He filed an application before USCO for registration of SURYAST, enlisted himself and RAGHAV as co-authors of the 2-D artwork. This work was generated using a photograph that was taken by Sahni, along with “The starry night” an image by Vincent Van Gogh. USCO rejected the application,
Saying that there was lack of human involvement and authorship in the artwork to claim a copyright. Applying the legal standard to Sahni’s case, the USCO determined that Mr. Sahni’s decisions related to the creation of the artwork – which included providing a base image, a style image, and determining variable values for style transfer – did not meet the criteria for adequate human authorship.
In Navigators Logistics Ltd v. Kashif Qureshi case also, copyright claim was rejected on the ground of lack of human involvement when a compiled list by a computer was submitted for protection.
Case: Sarah Silverman et al. v. Meta Platforms and OpenAI
In this case Paul Tremblay filed a law suit against Open AI claiming that this company was using their copyrighted work to train their AI text generative system (chatGpt), without taking any consent from the author of that work. The lawsuits also claimed violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, asserting that the AI models removed copyright management information from their works. Court stated that copyright infringement requires a plaintiff to show that “he owns a valid copyright” and the defendant “copied aspects of his work.” The Authors argued that they didn’t need to establish substantial similarity because they had evidence of direct copying by OpenAI. A California federal judge dismissed several claims against OpenAI, including vicarious copyright infringement and negligence, citing a lack of evidence showing substantial similarity between the AI outputs and the plaintiffs’ works.
Sarah Silverman sues OpenAI and Meta
Patenting and Copyrighting of AI generated content – International perspective
This issue of whether AI can be considered as inventor or not remains debatable, as every country throughout the world uses different approach according to its legal framework.
- UNITED STATES
Patent : In accordance with the regulations set forth by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, it is stipulated that a patent application must be filed by an inventor who is a natural person. Recently in 2024 USPTO introduced that the inventions that are assisted by AI can also be considered patentable if significant contribution has been done by a natural person.
Copyright : The U.S. copyright office provides that if the work is created by human then only it is eligible for copyright protection. This was upheld in the case of Thaler v. Perlmutter, where it was held that AI generated work without human intervention cannot be copyrighted.
Additionally executive order 14110 has been passed which mandates companies to report details when training high-impact AI models.
- UNITED KINGDOM
Patent: According to UK law, it is mandatory to have a human inventor listed on patent applications, and artificial intelligence systems cannot be designated as inventors.
Copyright: The UK’s copyright, designs and patents act 1988 recognizes computer generated works and provides authorship to the person who made the creation come into existence. Recently proposals have been made to allow AI to be trained on copyrighted materials without prior permission. This proposal has faced strong opposition from artists and industry groups.
- EUROPEAN UNION
Patent: According to the regulations of the European patent office, it is stipulated that an inventor must be a human being, and artificial intelligence is not eligible to be recognized as an inventor.
Copyright: The EU’s 2019 directive on copyright in digital single market includes text and data mining (TDM) exceptions. In 2024 it is made mandatory that the provider of general-purpose AI models need to disclose training data sources and comply with EU copyright laws.
- CHINA
Patent: Chinese law makes it mandatory that Inventor shall be a human. Artificial intelligence systems are not eligible to be recognized as inventors.
Copyright: In a landmark case of 2023 Beijing internet court recognized copyright in AI generated images and held that there is human intellectual input.
In 2023 Interim measures for the management of generative AI services was introduced in 2023, that require AI-generated content to be watermarked and adhere to socialist core values
- JAPAN
Patent: Japanese law mandates that only a natural person can be recognized as an inventor, thus artificial intelligence cannot be designated as such.
Copyright: In 2024, the agency of cultural affairs suggested that joint works involving both human and AI contributions could be eligible for copyright protection.
ETHICAL AND LEGAL CONCERNS
Generative AI is quickly transforming various sectors by providing robust capabilities in generating human-like text, producing impressive visuals, composing music, and simulating lifelike videos. This cutting edge technology has brought forth significant possibilities for advancements but it also raises ethical and legal issues that need to be tackled to ensure its responsible use.
- Inventorship and Authorship
As the article discusses, patent and copyright laws in most countries require a human inventor or author—whether it is China, Japan, the UK, the US, or South Korea. The reasons are numerous, and one of them is the question of ownership: if an invention or creative work is generated by an autonomous AI, then who owns it? If AI is considered the inventor, would it also be held responsible when things go wrong?
For example, in the DABUS case, the court refused to accept AI as the sole inventor. Similarly, in the case of Thaler v. Perlmutter, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected copyright protection for AI-generated art.
- Lack of Legal Personality
One of the biggest challenges that has been raised is that AI doesn’t have legal personality, which means it cannot have rights or duties, cannot sue, and cannot be sued. Hence, it cannot be held responsible for its acts like a human or a company. If AI is not considered a legal entity, then it cannot be listed as an inventor or be held accountable for its actions.
When there is no existing legislation for the regulation of AI, it raises serious legal ambiguity. For instance, if an AI-generated image causes harm or breaches IPR laws, then who should be liable—the developer, the user, the company that deployed the AI, or someone else? When there are no clear rules available, it becomes difficult for courts and legal systems to handle such cases.
- Use of Copyrighted Data for AI Training
There have been many instances where copyrighted work has been used to train AI models like Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative AI systems such as ChatGPT, Copilot, etc. Datasets created by others are used, most of the time without the consent of the original creators. As a result, several high-profile lawsuits have been filed.
Example: The New York Times filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, accusing them of using its copyrighted articles to build and train their AI systems.
Authors like Sarah Silverman, Paul Tremblay, and others filed claims stating that their copyrighted books had been used to train AI without their consent.
- Dilution of Human Creativity
With the advancement of technology, AI systems have developed to such an extent that they have become capable of generating poetry, songs, art, literature, and even scientific innovations, which blurs the line between AI-generated content and human-made work. If we start relying more on AI for efficiency and profit, then it will surely lead to fewer opportunities for human artists, inventors, or creators, and the work created by human creators will be overshadowed by AI outputs that are faster, more efficient, cheaper, and easier to produce.
- Accountability and Responsibility
A major challenge is the question of accountability, who should be held liable when things go wrong. If an AI Invents a faulty medicine, or performs surgery which doesn’t go well and harms the patents then it will become extremely difficult to understand who is liable for the consequences.
To address this issue, some suggest introducing strict liability frameworks,through which the companies deploying high-risk AI system would automatically bear the responsibility. Others advocate for regulatory oversight and clearer guidelines to ensure traceability and ethical deployment of AI technologies.
Enforcement and Regulations Dealing With AI
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to evolve, countries across the globe have taken significant steps to address the challenges it poses—particularly in relation to intellectual property rights (IPR). Through the introduction of targeted regulations, policy measures, and ethical frameworks. These efforts aim to ensure that AI does not disrupt or undermine existing IPR laws. Governments and international bodies are working to strike a balance between fostering innovation and protecting creators’ rights, recognizing that AI-generated content and inventions raise complex questions of authorship, ownership, and legal accountability.
- AI REGULATION IN UNITED STATES
In united states there is no particular law dealing with AI, but several government agencies are deployed to oversee the use of artificial intelligence. The federal trade commission (FTC) ensures AI system are fair, transparent and unbiased. The national institute of standards and technology (NIST) develops guidelines to address AI related risks. The white house has introduced an AI bill of rights to safeguard individuals from the negative impact of AI technologies.
States like California has enacted California consumer privacy act (CCPA) that allows individuals to control how their data is utilized in AI systems.
- AI REGULATION IN CHINA
In china generative AI regulation and AI algorithm regulations, ensures responsible and safer use of AI technology by providing that the companies creating AI must follow ethical guidelines approved by government. The cybersecurity law makes sure that data is kept private and secure.
- AI REGULATION IN EUROPEAN UNION
The European Union has introduced AI act and regulations that categorize AI systems based on their risk levels—high, low, or unacceptable—with corresponding rules to govern their use. The general data protection regulation is implemented to safeguard personal data of individuals in AI-related activities. With the enforcement of the AI act and GDPR, the EU seeks to guarantee security, fair trade, and the protection of its citizen’s rights. and The main objective of these regulations is to promote trust and transparency in AI systems.
- AI REGULATION IN INDIA
In India there is no specific law that deals with AI yet, but there are other laws in India that ensure the proper regulation of AI.
- Digital Data Protection Act 2023 – This legislation imposes obligations on Data Fiduciaries to safeguard digital personal data, emphasizing accountability and ensuring rights and responsibilities.
- In Rajya Sabha there was an introduction of the Artificial intelligence (Protection of Rights of Employees Bill,2023), with the objective of protecting the rights of employees in relation to the deployment and utilization of artificial intelligence in the work environment.
- The Information Technology (Central Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are a set of regulations established by the Indian government to oversee digital platforms, with a particular focus on social media, OTT platforms, and news websites.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the rapid evolution of Artificial Intelligence has undeniably transformed the landscape of creativity, innovation, and intellectual property. As AI continues to play an increasingly prominent role in generating intellectual property, traditional legal frameworks are being tested and exposed for their inadequacies in addressing the complexities of authorship, inventorship, and ownership. The debate on whether AI can be recognized as an inventor or author continues to evolve, with most jurisdictions requiring human involvement for patents and copyrights. Cases like Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents and Ankit Sahni v. Registrar of Copyrights highlight the difficulty in accommodating AI-generated works within traditional legal frameworks, further underscoring the challenges of integrating AI within these systems. As this issue gains global prominence, it’s clear that the legal landscape must adapt to keep up with AI’s increasing influence. Moving forward, it is crucial for lawmakers to reform existing IP laws, ensuring they stay relevant, fair, and capable of managing the growing impact of AI in the realm of creativity and innovation, all while preserving the integrity of human contribution.
REFERENCES
- Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property, Indian Copyright Act. Singhania & Co. LLP
- What Is Artificial Intelligence? Definition, Uses, and Types | Coursera
- India’s MeitY to Unveil AI Impact Report: A Step Towards Progressive Regulation? | AI News
- Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy
- Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: An Economic Perspective by Alexander Cuntz, Carsten Fink, Hansueli Stamm :: SSRN
- Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem
