Who Owns AI-Generated Content? A Guide to Copyright and Legal Rights

Faiza M, Author

A 4th-year BBA LLB (Hons.) student at B.S. Abdur Rahman Crescent Institute of Science and Technology, Read More.

---

Abstract:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a powerful tool in creative fields, generating works of art, literature, and music that rival human creations. However, the question remains: Is AI truly creative, or does it merely replicate and refine existing human works? This article explores the philosophical and legal dimensions of AI-generated creativity, analyzing whether AI exhibits originality or functions as an advanced imitation mechanism.

The discussion begins by defining creativity and examining the mechanics of AI-generated content. It then delves into key legal frameworks, particularly in copyright law, where courts have debated AI’s authorship rights. Landmark cases such as Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. (1991) and Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents (2021) illustrate the challenges of defining AI’s role in creative authorship. Additionally, Indian legal perspectives, including Narendra Kumar Jain v. Union of India (2022), highlight the evolving stance on AI-generated works.

The article further analyzes the impact of AI on intellectual property rights, exploring issues of moral rights, ownership, and licensing. It compares human creativity with AI-generated works, questioning whether AI can possess the intent, emotion, or originality required for legal recognition.

Ultimately, while AI-generated content demonstrates innovation, legal frameworks have yet to grant it full creative recognition. The future of AI in creative industries depends on evolving legal interpretations, ethical considerations, and advancements in machine learning.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Creativity, Copyright Law, Intellectual Property, AI-Generated Works

Introduction:

• Defining Creativity-

Creativity is traditionally associated with human intellect, characterized by originality, problem-solving, and emotional depth. Scholars define creativity as the ability to produce novel and valuable ideas. AI, however, operates through pattern recognition and computational learning, raising the question: Can AI truly be considered creative?

• AI in Art, Music, and Literature-

AI has demonstrated its capability to produce artistic works—such as AI-generated paintings sold at auctions, AI-composed symphonies, and AI-written novels. Algorithms like OpenAI’s GPT-4 and DeepMind’s AlphaGo utilize deep learning to create content that often appears indistinguishable from human-generated works.

• Legal and Philosophical Perspectives-

From a legal standpoint, creativity involves originality, which courts use as a criterion for copyright protection. The philosophical debate centers around whether AI can possess the intent or consciousness required for genuine creativity.

Understanding AI-Generated Works:

• How AI Creates Content-

AI creativity relies on generative models, which process vast datasets to generate new outputs. For example, AI trained on millions of artworks can produce paintings that blend various artistic styles, but does this constitute true creativity or merely an advanced form of synthesis?

• Machine Learning and Generative Models-

Neural networks like Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and Large Language Models (LLMs) generate text, images, and music. These systems do not “think” creatively but generate probabilistically determined outputs based on existing patterns.

Legal Framework for AI and Creativity:

• Copyright and Originality: Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone (1991)[1]

In Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that originality requires independent creation and a minimal degree of creativity. AI-generated works challenge this standard, as they lack human authorship.

• AI as an Author: Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents (2021)[2]

In Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, the UK court ruled that AI cannot be listed as an inventor for patent rights. This case raises concerns about AI’s legal personhood in creative works.

Indian Legal Perspective: Narendra Kumar Jain v. Union of India (2022)[3]

In India, the Delhi High Court ruled on AI’s authorship, emphasizing that copyright law does not currently recognize AI as an author. This case indicates that Indian law aligns with international standards in denying AI the status of a legal creator.

Tests for Creativity of AI-Generated Works:

In assessing whether AI-generated works qualify as “creative,” various legal and philosophical tests have been proposed. These tests evaluate originality, authorship, and human intervention, forming the basis for copyright and intellectual property protection.

1. The Originality Test

This test examines whether a work exhibits independent creative expression rather than mere replication.

Case law: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. (1991) established that a work must have a “minimal degree of creativity” to qualify for copyright.

2. The Sweat of the Brow Doctrine

This doctrine argues that effort and labor in compiling information can justify copyright protection, even without originality.

However, the Feist ruling rejected this standard in the U.S.

3. The Modicum of Creativity Test

This is a refined version of the originality test, requiring at least a minimal level of creative input.

AI-generated works often fail this test since they derive from pre-existing datasets.

4. The Human Authorship Test

Many legal systems, including India, require a human author for copyright recognition.

AI-generated works are often denied copyright due to the absence of human involvement in the creative process.

5. The Skill and Judgment Test

Used in jurisdictions like Canada and India, this test assesses whether a work demonstrates skill and judgment beyond mechanical effort.

AI-generated works struggle to meet this test as they rely on algorithmic processing rather than human discretion.

Which Test is Used in India?

India primarily follows the Skill and Judgment Test, which aligns with global standards requiring human intervention for copyright protection. This was reaffirmed in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008), where the Supreme Court of India ruled that originality requires the exercise of skill, judgment, and labor.

Additionally, Indian copyright law follows the Doctrine of Originality, which states that creativity must involve independent intellectual effort.

Relevant Sections in Indian Law-

1. Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957 – Defines “author” as a person who creates a literary, artistic, or musical work. Since AI lacks legal personhood, it cannot be recognized as an author under Indian law.
2. Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 – Specifies that copyright subsists in “original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works.” The requirement for originality creates legal barriers for AI-generated content.
3. Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 – Establishes that the author is the first owner of a copyright-protected work. Since AI is not a legal entity, ownership cannot be granted to AI itself.
4. Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) – While the IT Act governs digital and automated processes, it does not recognize AI as a legal creator.
5. Patent Act, 1970 – The Indian Patent Office has denied patents to AI-generated inventions, citing the absence of human inventors, as seen in the rejection of AI system “DABUS” as an inventor.

Comparative Analysis: Human vs. AI Creativity:

•  The Role of Intent and Emotion-

Human creativity is deeply linked to intent and emotions, aspects AI lacks. While AI can generate content based on data, it does not experience emotions or conceptualize ideas in a human-like manner.

• Case Studies of AI in Creative Industries-

AI-generated paintings, such as Edmond de Belamy by Obvious AI, which sold for $432,500 at Christie’s.

AI-written novels and poetry, including OpenAI’s experiments in generating fiction.

Intellectual Property Rights and AI:

• Moral and Economic Rights-

Moral rights protect the personal and reputational interests of an author, raising questions about whether AI can hold such rights. Economic rights involve ownership disputes, as AI-generated works lack a clear legal owner.

• Ownership and Licensing Challenges-

Courts worldwide struggle to assign ownership of AI-generated works. Some argue that the entity operating the AI should hold copyright, while others propose that AI-generated works enter the public domain.

Ethical and Future Implications:

AI’s rapid advancements in generating artistic, literary, and musical works have sparked debates about whether it can truly replace human creativity. While AI can analyze vast amounts of data, replicate artistic styles, and even generate original-looking compositions, it fundamentally lacks the personal experiences, emotions, and intentions that define human creativity. Human creativity is deeply connected to cognitive processes, personal insights, and emotional depth, which AI cannot replicate. AI models like GPT-4, DeepDream, and DALL·E generate content based on probabilistic predictions and pre-existing patterns rather than genuine inspiration or conscious intent. This distinction makes it unlikely that AI will ever fully replace human creativity, but it can undoubtedly serve as a powerful tool for creative professionals. Artists, musicians, and writers can leverage AI to enhance their creative process, generate new ideas, and streamline workflows. AI can assist in brainstorming, automating repetitive tasks, and even suggesting novel artistic directions, but it lacks the ability to independently conceptualize works driven by personal experiences or philosophical reflections. The future will likely see AI functioning as a co-creator rather than a replacement for human artists, enabling hybrid models where AI aids but does not dominate the creative process.

The evolving nature of AI-generated works poses significant challenges to intellectual property (IP) laws, particularly in determining authorship, ownership, and copyright protection. Currently, most legal systems do not recognize AI as an independent author, as seen in cases such as Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents (2021), where the UK courts ruled that AI cannot be designated as an inventor. In India, under the Copyright Act, 1957, authorship and ownership are explicitly tied to human creators, reinforcing the requirement for human intervention in intellectual property rights. However, as AI-generated works become more prevalent, legal frameworks will need to evolve to address these complexities. One potential approach is the introduction of AI-specific copyright protections, where AI-generated works are assigned a unique legal category separate from human-authored works. Another possibility is recognizing the entity that develops or trains the AI as the rightful copyright holder, similar to how corporate authorship is treated under “work-for-hire” provisions. Some jurisdictions may explore granting AI-generated works limited protection under sui generis rights, which could offer restricted exclusivity for AI-assisted creations while preserving traditional copyright laws for human authors. Additionally, questions regarding liability, plagiarism, and fair use will become increasingly important as AI-generated content proliferates. Ethical concerns also arise regarding the potential misuse of AI in creative fields, such as deepfakes, unauthorized content replication, and the displacement of human artists. Policymakers will need to strike a balance between encouraging technological innovation and protecting human creativity, ensuring that AI serves as a complement rather than a threat to creative industries. As AI continues to evolve, global legal systems must adapt to provide clarity on ownership, authorship, and fair compensation while maintaining the fundamental principle that true creativity remains a uniquely human trait.

Conclusion:

AI-generated works have undeniably revolutionized creative industries, demonstrating an advanced ability to produce art, music, literature, and even legal documents. However, despite their technical sophistication, these works lack the fundamental attributes traditionally associated with creativity—namely, intent, consciousness, and emotional depth. Human creativity is inherently linked to subjective thought, experience, and emotional expression. It is not merely the production of something novel but the infusion of meaning, context, and personal insight into a work. AI, however, operates through statistical pattern recognition, neural network processing, and deep learning algorithms, which, while capable of generating impressive outputs, do not equate to genuine creative intent. While AI models such as OpenAI’s GPT-4, Google’s DeepDream, and DeepMind’s AlphaFold can produce aesthetically appealing and contextually relevant content, they function based on pre-existing datasets and probabilistic calculations rather than intrinsic originality. The key distinction lies in the fact that AI does not “think” or “feel” but rather predicts and generates based on data inputs. This fundamental limitation is why legal frameworks worldwide remain hesitant to grant AI the status of an independent creator. Most jurisdictions, including India, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, have upheld the notion that copyright law is designed to protect human authorship, as evidenced by landmark rulings such as Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. (1991) and Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents (2021). The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, specifically requires a human author to claim copyright, and courts have consistently reaffirmed the necessity of human involvement in creative processes. The primary legal obstacle is the definition of authorship—since AI lacks legal personhood and independent cognition, it cannot claim ownership of its generated works. This stance aligns with the “Skill and Judgment Test” used in India, which requires intellectual effort and human discretion for copyright protection, as reaffirmed in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008).[4] As AI continues to advance, future legal debates will need to address whether AI-generated works should be granted a unique form of protection under intellectual property laws, possibly through an AI-specific copyright framework or public domain categorization. Additionally, ethical concerns arise regarding accountability, ownership disputes, and potential misuse of AI-generated content. If AI is granted authorship rights in the future, significant modifications to intellectual property laws will be required to define ownership, liability, and the scope of rights. Until then, AI will remain classified as a sophisticated tool that enhances and assists human creativity rather than an independent creator. While AI can automate and optimize creative processes, true creativity—rooted in conscious experience, originality, and intent—remains a uniquely human trait. Balancing technological advancements with legal protection will be crucial in shaping the evolving role of AI in creative industries, ensuring that intellectual property rights adapt to innovation while preserving the essence of human authorship.

[1]Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

[2]Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, [2021] EWCA Civ 1374.

[3]Narendra Kumar Jain v. Union of India, Delhi High Court, 2022.

[4] Eastern Book Company & Ors v. D.B. Modak & Anr, (2008) 1 SCC 1.