THE INTERSECTION OF AI AND COPYRIGHT LAW: A LEGAL PRESPECTIVE FROM INDIA BY - N. ADITYA SRIRAM & N.L. GEETHA DEVI
THE
INTERSECTION OF AI AND COPYRIGHT LAW: A LEGAL
PRESPECTIVE FROM INDIA
AUTHORED BY - N. ADITYA SRIRAM & N.L. GEETHA DEVI
IX Semester, BBA., LL.B (Hons.)
School Of Law, Sastra University
Abstract:
Intellectual Property
Laws holds their significance from many decades which enabled the protection to the innovations in the field
of artistic, literature and dramatic works in addition to the new innovations in the field of science
and technology, primarily
based upon the human intelligence. Modern technology has
undergone a paradigm shift, with Artificial Intelligence (AI) emerging as the pinnacle innovation, marking significant development in IPR. Considering the rapid advancement of AI will have tremendous
impact on various sectors throughout the world, not limited to a single industry. The Intellectual Property Rights
regime which sustainably focuses on human creativity is currently seeing
the drastic changes
in terms of innovations and creations of AI generated. As AI capable
of producing more creative works,
and even new technologies, traditional intellectual property rules encounter difficulties in
determining ownership, rights, and protection.
Thus, AI has both positive
and harmful effects
on the domain of intellectual property rights. On the one hand, it will promote prompt and
precise research, which is essential for developing a system for stratifying discoveries and ideas in the patent
domain, as well as patent
search tools. On the flip side,
it will have a negative impact on the global sphere of intellectual property
rights. This paper focuses on how
generative AI and deepfake effects the copyright law and necessary measures to protect the human works from AI infringement.
KEY WORDS: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright Act 1957, Intellectual Property
Rights, Generative AI, Deepfake.
Introduction:
Since intellectual
property rights and artificial intelligence are distinct domains, it seemed unfeasible to amalgamate them
together. Human intelligence is a crucial notion in the intellectual property rights regime. Intellectual property laws
primarily regulate and deal with an individual's
inventiveness, creativity, and knowledge, which were primarily used in the work
the individual produced. A person's
right to intellectual property is a reward for using their own intelligence. As previously stated, the
fundamental purpose of intellectual property rights is to leverage human intelligence to secure
patents, trademarks, or copyright; nevertheless, technical breakthroughs have made it possible for artificial intelligence (AI) to produce
art, much of which is created by artists. During the last few decades,
the world has undergone a phenomenal advancement in use of technology which resulted in a shift from human aided
technology to machine aided technology. The concept of machine aided technology resulted
in the inception of Artificial Intelligence. In a 1956 conference, computer
scientist Mr. John McCarthy officially introduced the phrase "artificial
intelligence." He explained that it was the idea of a computer analysing
and responding to data in a way that is comparable to how an intelligent human would react
to the same input. In the last few years usage of AI has increasingly integrated into our daily lives, with devices such as Alexa, Siri, Cortana, Amazon,
Netflix, and others analysing our preferences and making recommendations in the form of "you may like" ideas. One of the best and the astonishing innovation made by AI is the introduction
of AI driven cars which uses machine learning and functions on their own by learning about driving. The above-mentioned AI devices are potential
examples which can generate independent outcomes due to eight interrelated
features: creativity, unpredictable
results, independent and autonomous operation,
rational intelligence, evolution, ability
to learn, collect, access, and communicate with outside data, efficiency and
accuracy, and free choice
goal orientation.
The dissertation uses
the Oxford Learner's Dictionary to define artificial intelligence (AI) in the context of intellectual property. AI is
the study and creation of computer systems that can mimic intelligent human behaviour, including
machine and deep learning techniques. The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) one of the essential
organs of United Nations, headquartered in Geneva, is dedicated to improving intellectual property protection and stimulating creative activity around the world.
According to the 2019 WIPO Technical Trends on Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property offices
have received about 340,000 AI-related applications since the inception of the technology. WIPO
has already held six sessions on artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights.
LITERATURE REVIEW:
"Artificial
intelligence and automated content creation: Copyright scenario in India,"
Ashna, S., Akanksha, C., & Sarthak,
S. (2022). The authors delve
into the challenges and opportunities AI brings
to content creation, particularly in the context of Indian copyright law. They
explore how automated content
generation through text, music, or visual art raises questions about authorship and ownership under existing copyright
frameworks. The study emphasizes the need for clearer guidelines on the copyrightability of AI-generated works and
discusses the evolving role of AI in creative industries within India’s legal system.
“Interplay
Between Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law in India: Issues and
Challenges”, Singh and Shanker. This article analyse the complex relationship between
AI-generated content and Indian
copyright law. The authors discuss how traditional copyright principles of
authorship, originality, and ownership struggle
to accommodate AI-generated works, given that copyright laws were designed
with human creators in mind. They highlight specific
challenges, such as determining authorship and ownership for content created
autonomously by AI, and discuss
the legal ambiguity
this creates.
"Artificial
Intelligence and Copyright: Issues and Challenges," Ahuja, V.K. (2020). This paper explores the copyright implications of
AI-driven creations and the complexities surrounding AI as a possible "author." He
discusses key issues like originality, ownership, and accountability when a machine
generates content independently. The article underscores the challenges posed
by AI under traditional copyright law and calls for legal reforms
to ensure AI’s increasing role in content
creation is supported by an appropriate legal framework.
"AI-IPR
Intersection: An Analysis of Emerging Issues in the Indian Context,"
Swamy, R.N. (2021). This
paper examines the complex intersection of artificial intelligence and
intellectual property rights (IPR) in India. The paper highlights several
key challenges that AI presents, such as defining originality and inventorship when
machines generate content or inventions. Swamy suggests that the rapid advancement of AI requires
India’s legal system to adapt, proposing potential policy adjustments and enhanced legal frameworks to address the unique demands
AI places on IPR laws.
“Balancing
Indian Copyright Law with
AI-Generated Content: The Significant Human Input Approach”,
Harshal Chhabra Kanishk Gaurav Pandey. This
blog examines the challenges AI- generated
content poses to Indian copyright law, emphasizing the need for human
involvement in authorship for copyright protection. The authors advocate
for a "significant human input" criterion, arguing
that without human creative input, AI-generated works may lack the originality
required under current copyright frameworks.
Statement of Research Problem:
Rapid advancement of AI technology has significantly transformed content creation across
various domains in India. The use of AI has been intensively increased in the fields of music,
literature, dramatic and artistic works which was created and need to identify threat.
The ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to generate
creative works autonomously calls into question
established intellectual property
(IP) regulations, raising
concerns about ownership, authorship, and copyright
protection. This study seeks to
determine how existing copyright
regimes can adapt to AI's unique capabilities while safeguarding human
creativity and intellectual property.
Objectives of the study:
·
To
investigate the potential impact of AI-generated content on existing Indian
copyright laws.
·
To investigate the issues of identifying authorship
and ownership in AI-generated works.
Research Questions:
·
How do AI-generated works fit
into the existing
Indian copyright framework?
·
What are the obstacles
in determining authorship and ownership of AI-generated content?
Scope and Limitation:
This study
focuses on the copyright law framework in India, specifically as it relates
to generative AI. It examines relevant legal challenges and case studies,
but does not extend to patent law or trademark considerations. Limitations include the evolving
nature of AI technology, which may outpace legislative responses,
and the jurisdictional focus on Indian law, potentially limiting applicability
in other regions.
Research
Methodology:
The research methodology
is based on the doctrinal research. The most
precise secondary data had been collected from authentic sources. The
data used here has been collected from different articles, journals and legislations.
Legal
Personhood of AI under IP Laws:
The existing
Intellectual Property laws in India the Copyright
Act 1957 exclusively grants the patent right to only legal persons. To be
precise the law considers following
persons as legal persons: a) Natural Persons (Human beings), b) Artificial Persons-
Includes artificial bodies
like companies, trusts
and other institutions being controlled and functioned by natural persons. Section- 2(d)
of Copyright act 1957
defines: -
“author” means,
—
i.
in
relation to a literary or dramatic work, the author of the work;
ii.
in
relation to a musical work, the composer;
iii.
in
relation to an artistic work other than a photograph, the artist;
iv.
in
relation to a photograph, the person taking the photograph;
v.
in
relation to a cinematograph film or sound recording, the producer; and
vi.
in
relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated,
the person who causes the work to be created;]
The closer interpretation
of the definition author provides that a person who has created such work will be regarded as an author. The
Copyright Act, 1957 amended in 1994 to provide for the possibility that computer-generated artistic, theatrical, musical,
or literary works could occur.
Thus, "the person
who causes the work to be created" is defined as the creator of such
"computer- generated
works" in Section 2(d)(v). Depending on how this definition interprets the
term "person," AI may or may not be granted
authorship.
In the case of Rupendra
Kashyap v. Jiwan Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.,
the Delhi High Court adopted a
conventional approach in deciding whether the Central Board of Secondary
Education (CBSE) may assert copyright
over a series of examinations. The Court ruled that since the CBSE is an artificial entity, it cannot
assert copyright unless it can demonstrate that it hired people to prepare the test questions. Thus, in the
context of Indian copyright law, authorship can only be asserted by a natural person.
This stance was upheld by the court in Tech Plus Media
Private Ltd.
v.
Jyoti Janda, wherein
it was decided that,
although the copyright
owner may be the author,
authorship cannot reside in
a juristic person.
The jurisprudential
concept of granting of a copyright to a non- natural and juristic person can be much expeditiously dealt in the case of Naruto v. David Slater, often
known as "The Monkey Selfie Case," is one of the copyright cases that has excited the legal community
throughout the world. This is the first time a monkey has taken a
selfie with a camera, and it occurred without any prior instruction. This is a unique and exciting event. In this case,
an important question has arisen as to whether
the monkey Naruto can be given a copyright claim. PETA (People
for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals)
has launched a federal lawsuit against Slater on behalf of the monkey who took the selfie, claiming that the monkey owns the current and
future earnings from the selfies. PETA's petition
was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of California, and William H. Orrick,
J., stated that an animal is not
covered by copyright. No law or precedent mentions an animal getting a copyright. As a result, Naruto doesn't own the copyright.
In Indian Scenario, the
copyright office in India, albeit incorrectly, recognised an AI system RAGHAV as a co-author of an artistic
work and registered the application for copyright protection in November 2020. However, the first time Ankit Sahni, the
designer of the AI system RAGHAV, filed
an application designating the AI system as the sole author of such work, the
copyright office rejected it.
Later, the copyright office filed a notification to retract the registration,
stating that it had wrongly awarded
it, and urged the human co-author, Mr. Sahni, to consider the legal standing of the AI system RAGHAV. However, the
Indian Copyright Office filed a withdrawal notice, requesting that Mr. Sahni give additional information regarding
the legal status of the AI tool RAGHAV.
The notification emphasised Sections 2(d)(iii) and 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright
Act of 1957, stating that an 'author'
must be an artist or anybody who causes the artistic work to be made. The application status is still
represented as 'registered' on the website of the copyright office, although
the court has yet to rule
on this.
Regarding the term “owner,”
Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, lists specific examples
of who owns a work that is protected when it is created for
artificial persons like the government and international organizations through an apprenticeship or service agreement. However, the ownership
of content created
by artificial intelligence has not been thoroughly examined
or addressed by Indian
courts. The need for such jurisprudence extends beyond merely determining the author and owner of copyrighted works; it also requires clarifying the applicability and enforceability
of these rights. It is crucial to recognize that AI is neither a natural person
nor a juristic entity, meaning it
cannot benefit from the rights granted under the Act, including moral rights,
nor can it be held liable or penalized for unauthorized use under the current legal framework. Therefore, the legislature will need to evaluate the scope and nature of these emerging
technologies and amend the legislation accordingly.
Conflict in term of Copyright
Protection:
Sections 22 – 29 cover
copyright for published literary, dramatic, musical, and creative works, including
anonymous and pseudonymous works, posthumous works, pictures, films, sound recordings, government works,
PSUs, and international organisations.
|
Section
|
Term of Copyright
|
No. of years
|
|
22
|
Term of Copyright in Published Literary, Dramatic, Musical and Artistic Works.
|
Published within the
lifetime of the author until sixty
years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies. In the case of a work
of joint authorship, be construed
as a reference to the author who
dies last
|
|
23
|
Term of Copyright in Anonymous and
Pseudonymous Works
|
Copyright shall
subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the
work is first
published. If identity of author disclosed before the expiry of the said
period, copyright shall subsist until sixty years
|
|
24
|
Term
|
of
|
Copyright
|
in
|
Posthumous
|
Copyright subsists at the date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of
the death of the author
or, in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the case of joint authorship, at
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or
immediately before the date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of
the death of the author who
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dies last, but which,
or any
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
adaptation of which, has not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
been published before that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
date, copyright shall subsist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
until sixty years from
the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
beginning of the calendar year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
next following the year
in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
which the work is first
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
published or, where an
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
adaptation of the work
is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
published in any earlier
year,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from the beginning of the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
calendar year next following
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that year. Such work
shall be
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
deemed to have been
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
published, if it has been
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
performed in public or if any
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sound recordings made in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
respect of the work have been
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sold to the public
or have been
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
offered for sale to the public
|
|
26
|
Term of copyright in cinematograph films
|
Copyright shall
subsist until sixty years,
from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the
work is first
published.
|
|
27
|
Term of copyright in
sound recording
|
Copyright shall
subsist until sixty years,
from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the
work is first
published.
|
|
28
|
Term of
copyright Government works.
|
Wherein the government is the first
owner, copyright shall
subsist until sixty years from the
beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published
|
|
28A
|
Term of copyright in works of public undertakings.
|
If public
undertaking is first owner,
then copyright shall
subsist until sixty years from the
beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published.
|
|
29
|
Term of copyright in works of international organisations
|
If section
41 is applicable, copyright shall
subsist until sixty years,
from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the
work is first
published.
|
An inference
can be drawn from the literal interpretation of the abovementioned provisions reiterating
that the term of copyright protection i.e., the enjoyment of copyright
ownership by the owner is not
perpetual in nature
but it is limited to 60 years plus the lifetime of an author.
If AI-generated work is
given copyright, another issue will arise regarding the duration of the term for which the AI-generated work will be protected. The term may be calculated
from the date of publication for a period
of 50 or 60 years,
depending on the laws of the nations.
The copyright laws protect
the author for life plus 60 years. Because AI is not a human being, determining
how long the protection should last
would be a source of contention. The "term" of copyright is another problem
because AI is regarded as a "robot" and does not exist in a human-like manner. The phrase
copyright is until the author's death and sixty years after that, at
which point the work becomes public
domain. Given the nature of AI, it will be challenging to give works created by
AI the title of copyright. An AI can
produce an endless quantity of work, is eternal, and never gets weary. Because
of this, copyright protection for works
produced by AI is unclear
and up for debate. If any organisation has published the work, it
will be protected for 60 years beginning with the date of publication. Technology's dynamic nature
makes it difficult to assign an age. As a result, the most effective way to assure copyright
protection is to grant it to a natural person, in this case, the user of AI software. The operation of
artificial intelligence, as well as the relationship between this technology and its users,
cannot be considered a single entity.
The user cannot claim to be the author because
an author utilises
his intellectual abilities
to create something
new. However, the technology
possesses the brains and skills required to create new work, whereas the user
only has an idea. To summarise, the
user cannot claim authorship under the usual norm, and this case must be included
as a
legislative exemption.
Legal
Approaches to AI and Copyright in Different Jurisdictions:
In Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has
declared on several occasions, particularly in
its landmark Infopaq decision (C-5/08
Infopaq International A/S v Danske
Dagbaldes Forening), that copyright
only applies to original works, and that
originality must reflect the
"author's own intellectual creation." This is
commonly believed to suggest that an original work must represent the author's
personality, implying that a human author is required for a copyrighted work to exist.
China:
In a
landmark decision, the Beijing Internet Court granted copyright protection to
an AI- generated image, upsetting
worldwide conventions and providing new insights into the legal position of
AI-generated work. Mr. Li utilised text-to-image software, Stable Diffusion, to
create an image, which was then used without permission, prompting the
complaint. The court's decision, which recognises the image's
"originality" due to human-originated creative investment, contrasts strongly with the US Copyright Office's
position, which has generally denied copyright protection to AI-generated photographs. The Beijing
court emphasises strong human involvement and aligns AI with traditional instruments for human ingenuity. This verdict
has far-reaching repercussions, defying
conventional wisdom and spurring a global rethinking of legal frameworks for
the proper recognition and protection of AI-generated output inside creative
processes. As artificial intelligence advances, this landmark decision
will become an important reference point, prompting legal
regimes around the world to adapt to new kinds of creative
expression.
Shenzhen Tencent v. Shanghai
Yingxunxxvi:
The People's Court of
Nanshan District Shenzhen, China, rendered a copyright decision in relation to an essay created by the artificial intelligence application Dreamwriter. The article was accompanied by a disclaimer that read, "was automatically written by Tencent Robot
Dreamwriter".
The court concluded that
the article's expression and articulation had "certain originality"
and met the requirements for
copyright protection. The court ordered Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co Ltd. to pay 1,500 yuan (US$216.02) to
Tencent as compensation for the illegal use of this article. met requirements for copyright protection.
The court ordered Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co Ltd. to pay 1,500 yuan (US$216.02) to Tencent as compensation for the illegal
use of this article.
USA:
USA
Copyright act does not recognise AI generated contents. USA copyright is of the
view that solely does not create any
contents, rather it compares all the data from all the sources and compiles the same and gives the output,
thus lacking creativity. Basically, it is a human being who gives command to an AI for creating
contents, without human involvement AI cannot generate output. The United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, in Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter,
Register of Copyrights and Director of the United States Copyright Office, et
al., discussed and decided on the main issue of whether work generated autonomously by an AI system is copyrightable in the United
States. After deliberating on the question, the honourable court
ruled that the Copyright
Office behaved appropriately in denying copyright registration for a work made without human involvement. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Register
of Copyrights did not err in rejecting Thaler's copyright registration application since only works
created by humans are protected by copyright law in the United States. The
District Court ruled that although
copyright law has shown elastic enough to adapt to works utilising new technology, human creativity nonetheless remains the basic condition at the foundation of copyrightability,
even as that human creativity is directed through new instruments or into new media. The District Court ruled that,
contrary to Thaler's request, copyright has never extended to include
works produced by new technologies that function without human guidance.
In September 2022, a
comic book made with AI assistance received a first-of-its-kind registration from the US Copyright Office (the
"USCO"), which was startling and revolutionary. The
artist behind Zarya of the Dawn,
Kristina Casanova, disclosed that the USCO had requested that she provide
details of the process that showed a high level of human involvement in the creation
of this graphic
novel.
However, a few months
after granting such copyright registration, USCO contacted the artist to let her know that it had started a process
to overturn its previous copyright decision, stressing that human creation is required for copyrighted
works to be officially granted for a comic book created using artificial intelligence. There is a lot of confusion
surrounding AI-generated art and copyright
because the case is currently pending.
The Role of Copyright in Protecting AI-Created Works:
The convergence of AI-generated work and copyright law presents various
issues, reigniting the continuing debate
about how AI-generated content is governed by the law. The key component of copyright
law is the originality criterion, which is used as a benchmark to assess whether
a particular work qualifies for copyright protection.
This phrase
is frequently used to distinguish between works that are original
and those that are not. In
essence, "originality" means that a work that should be protected
must come from a known creator or
author, expressing the author's unique personality rather than being completely
new or derivative.
Intellectual property rights, such as copyright
and related rights,
grant exclusive rights
to the original owner, who
is a legal person, for a specified period of time. These rights permit the
protection of the work, invention, or
creativity and make it possible to receive royalties through licensing. In order for a right to be awarded, the owner
must fulfil the legal requirements. As a signatory to all significant international conventions and accords pertaining to the protection of intellectual property
rights, India offers
sufficient protection for works produced
by legal persons
through copyright law and
the patent system for inventions. In its 161st report,
the Parliamentary Standing Committee, which
reviewed the Indian Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime two years ago,
recommended creating a separate
category of rights for Artificial Intelligence and related innovations, as well
as solutions for protecting them as
intellectual property rights. Consequently on February 9, 2024, India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry
confirmed that the country’s current legal system for patents and copyrights can safeguard AI-generated works and
breakthroughs. Therefore, it is not required
to define separate rights for AI-generated works. India’s Copyright Act of 1957 offers adequate and effective
civil and criminal
consequences for infringement, including digital circumvention.
As a result, the Indian
IPR Regime does not need to establish a distinct category of rights for AI and related innovations. Consequently, the
current legal structure under the Patent and Copyright Act is well-equipped to protect works generated by artificial
intelligence (AI) and associated breakthroughs,
even if AI and related innovations are a rapidly developing field of
technology. As of right now, there is no plan to establish a distinct legal right to stop the law from being applied
to content produced by
artificial intelligence. The Copyright Act of 1957 grants a copyright owner exclusive economic right such as the right
of reproduction, translation, adaptation, and so on, requiring the user of Generative AI to obtain
permission to use their works for commercial purposes if such
use is not covered by the fair dealing exceptions provided under Section 52
of the Copyright Act. The Indian
Copyright Act was amended in 1994 to address scenarios in which artistic
works may be generated by a computer.
By adding Section
2(d)(vi) to the act, the amendment
made it clear that the person who created computer-generated works is the
rightful owner of those works.
According to copyright law, an author is protected if their creative work or product satisfies the requirements to be
considered "original." The "sweat of the brow" theory, which holds that an author
obtains copyright rights
based on their own mere diligence and effort, is the simplest
standard for awarding
copyright protection to the author (this level is not applicable in India).
The absence of uniqueness is a primary
argument against the protection of anything produced
by generative AI. Due to their inability to think for themselves, these
chatbots produce no original content. The result we get is a blend of pre-existing content found on the internet, hence it is argued
that AI-generated compositions cannot be copyrighted. However, when we examine the "originality" level
required in India
for claiming copyright
protection, that assumption falls apart.
Liability and Infringement Concerns
in AI-Generated Works:
Since intellectual property rights are private, the owners of those rights
are responsible for enforcing them. The Copyright Law provides sufficient and efficient civil
remedies as well as criminal
penalties for any infringement or unauthorised
use of works, including circumvention of digital rights. This is where things
become interesting in terms of the
law and how it interacts with generative AI. As of right now, the Copyright
Act of 1957 contains no clause addressing the liabilities of works produced
with artificial intelligence. The issue of who will be
responsible for any infringements committed by AI or its creation emerges if AI is acknowledged as the author and owner
of the content it generates. The term "person" is included in Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957,
which addresses infringement, and it enumerates specific acts by "persons" that
would constitute a violation of copyright. It is evident from examining the aforementioned section that the Act
exclusively regulates "persons" whose
actions violate the copyright of third parties. Since artificial intelligence
has not yet been given legal status
or recognised as a separate legal entity, any transgression by AI will be a
serious problem. As a result, every
AI-generated work must have a human author or owner who will be in charge of any infringement-related
matters. Concerning these copyright issues with AI, A class- action lawsuit was filed in January by 13
artists, including Andersen and Ortiz, against three AI models that generate
images utilising art that was found online:
Dream Up, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion. In the class action law suit they filed in California, they claimed that respondents Stability
AI LTD., Midjourney, and Deviant Art had committed massive and illegal
copyright infringement by profiting
from AI-enabled products that are entirely based on the creative works of
artists worldwide. According to their
lawsuit, artists believe AI developers should be required to get consent before utilising their creations
in training software, and they should have the option to opt out. They also want fair recompense. They
expressed concern that artistic creativity would be lost as a result of this
AI work.
Another challenge
posed by use of AI in Copyright
works is the evolvement of Deepfake technology. The meaning of the phrase
deepfake is Deepfakes, a mix of deep learning and 'fake', are photos, videos,
or sounds that are manipulated or generated with artificial intelligence techniques that may show actual
or non-existent persons.
They are a sort of synthetic medium.
In a layman sense, Deepfakes
are videos that employ deep learning, artificial intelligence, and photoshopping techniques to produce images
of events in order to convey disinformation. A deep- fake is any form of media (audio, video, or else) that has
been partially or completely recreated or altered.
The videos are created by combining technology such as GANs (Generative
Adversarial Networks) and ML (Machine
Learning). Copyright infringement, data protection, privacy,
defamation, freedom of speech and expression, content
moderation, intermediary liability, and even criminal law
are all violated by the deepfake technology since it is a tool for digital
fraud and is frequently used against
women for harassment and revenge porn. Under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act,
1957, the notion of fair dealing addresses which works are not deemed to be infringing in India. In contrast to the US viewpoint, the law has established a comprehensive list of acts that are not considered to be
infringing, and the doctrine of fair dealing is an exception to copyright
infringement. Although the Indian stance on fair dealing is frequently criticised for being inflexible, it works well in combating
maliciously manufactured deepfake technology because its use is exempt from all of the crimes listed in Section 52 of the
ICA. However, the employment of deepfake technology
for legitimate objectives may not be protected by the rule.
Policy
considerations:
We propose the
"Significant Human Input" criteria to achieve a balance between the conflicting principles of
recognising the copyrightability of AI-generated content and protecting human input in creative works.
It is a straightforward test designed to determine how much human input went into making an "original"
product. To clarify, we are not proposing a completely
new framework for assessing copyrightability; rather, this test operates within
the existing "Skill and
Judgement" framework, but with an additional query attached that
determines whether the
"original" product in issue would still exist in its tangible form without human involvement.t The
"Significant Input" test lays forth two fundamental conditions that
must be met in order to decide
whether or not an author who used AI to help create a work is eligible to claim copyright. The first criterion is
objective, and it should be verified if humans were involved in the creation process at all. Second, assess
the consideration of human involvement. The 'extent' of human ability, judgement, and labour spent in its development
must be substantial enough that the output would be
fundamentally different or non-existent without it.
The Zarya Standard:
A similar right was
recently established by the USA in the wake of the Zarya of the Dawn (or "Zarya") case. In this instance, despite the fact that every image
was produced by artificial intelligence, the US copyright office
acknowledged protection for a graphic novel. Following this, an official policy statement was
released by the USA copyright office stating that if a work has enough human authorship to meet the
requirements for copyright protection, it may be granted copyright even though
it was created using AI.
Conclusion:
Artificial intelligence
(AI) has impacted almost every business, and its benefits for intellectual property rights are
indisputable. For example, people would take years for originality which can be done by AI in a substantially smaller amount of time, by contributing advancement to the country.
However, before adopting AI, particularly in the area of intellectual property
rights, it is crucial to make sure
that our system is capable of handling the ambiguities and gaps that arise in AI creations and determining out who is
accountable for IPR violation. Narrow AI, which requires human intervention, offers significant benefits and can
greatly enhance various fields, proving to be
a boon for humanity. However, when AI reaches a stage where it operates
independently or its intelligence equals or surpasses
that of humans, some suggest it could pose an existential threat to the human race. Copyright law and
artificial intelligence provide a complicated environment that needs careful thought. India and other
countries must modify their copyright rules to handle the particular difficulties presented by
AI-generated works as AI technology develop. To create a just and equitable environment for all parties
involved, this will necessitate striking a balance between innovation and invention and the defence of intellectual property rights.
REFERENCES:
1. Ashna, S., Akanksha, C. and
Sarthak, S., 2022. Artificial intelligence and automated content creation: Copyright scenario in India. International Journal of Legal Science & Innovation (IJLSI), 4(1),
pp.580-592.
2. Swamy, R.N., 2021. AI-IPR Intersection: An Analysis of Emerging Issues in
the Indian Context. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 18(3).
3. Mishra, P., Thakur, V.S., Shandilya, S.,
Singhal, A.K. and Kishore, Y., 2023. Emerging
Technologies and Intellectual Property Rights: A Cross-Jurisdictional Examination of AI and Patent Laws in India and the USA.
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR), 28(5), pp.413-421.
4. Dwivedi, A., 2022.
Convergence of Artificial Intelligence with IP Laws. Jus Corpus LJ, 3, p.791.
5. Biolung, N.S.,
2022. Chat GPT: Patentability of AI Inventions. Jus Corpus LJ,
3, p.102.
6. Jenny Quang, Does Training AI Violate
Copyright Law?, 36 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1407
(2021).
7. Ahuja, V.K., 2020.
Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Issues and Challenges. ILI Law
Review Winter, (2020).
8. Thushar V Senan , Abey Augustine and
Aswathy Krishnan , AI, Creativity, and Copyright Law in India: Navigating the Boundaries of Originality and
Authorship, 6 (3) IJLMH Page 2941 - 2949 (2023), DOI: https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.115166
9. Sharma,
K. and Vardhan, D.R., 2024. Artificial Intelligence and Copyright in India: A Socio-Legal Perspective. Library Progress
International, 44(3),
pp.749-754.
10. Gaffar, H. and Albarashdi, S., 2024.
Copyright protection for AI-generated works:
Exploring originality and ownership in a digital
landscape. Asian Journal
of International Law,
pp.1-24.
11. Singh, A. and Shanker, N.,
2024. INTERPLAY BETWEEN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
AND THE COPYRIGHT LAW IN INDIA: ISSUES AND
CHALLENGES Tec Empresarial, 6(1).
12. Tiwari, S.K., 1957. AI-Generated Content and Copyright Law: Challenges and Adaptations
in India.
14. India, Ministry of Commerce &
Industry, Press Release, “Existing IPR Regime Well- Equipped to Protect
AI Generated Works,
No Need to Create Separate
Category of
Rights” (Release
ID: 2004715) (Feb.
9, 2024).
15. Review of the Intellectual Property Rights
Regime in India”,161st Report: Department- related Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Commerce, Rajya Sabha, (2023).
The
Copyright Act, 1957, § 2(d), Act No. 14 of 1957, India.
Naruto
v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018)
The Copyright Act, 1957, § 22, Act No. 14 of 1957,
India.
The
Copyright Act, 1957, §
23, Act No. 14 of 1957,
India.
The
Copyright Act, 1957, §
23, Act No. 14 of 1957,
India.
The
Copyright Act, 1957, §
29, Act No. 14 of 1957,
India.
Joseph
F. Borg , Galyna Podoprikhina and Laurence Alexander, Worldwide: AI-Generated Art: Copyright
Implications, MONDAQ (Feb. 23, 2023), https://www.mondaq.com/Blog/Index.
India,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Press Release, “Existing IPR Regime
Well-Equipped to Protect AI Generated Works, No Need to Create Separate
Category of Rights” (Release ID: 2004715) (Feb. 9, 2024).
The
Copyright Act, 1957, § 52, Act No. 14 of 1957, India.
Corrado
Rizzi, Artists Filed lass action Against
AI Art Generators Over Alleged Copyright Infringement, CLASS ACTION
(Sept. 28, 2023 07:45 PM), https://www.classaction.org/blog.
The Copyright
Act, 1957, § 52, Act No. 14 of 1957, India.
