Introduction

The rapid growth of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) has revolutionized the way creative content is produced, shared, and consumed. While AI has unleashed immense potential for innovation, it has simultaneously raised complex legal and ethical questions, particularly in the domain of the copyright and intellectual property law.

In India, the copyright regulations predate the emergence of AI technologies, leaving critical gaps in addressing challenges such as ownership of content generated using the AI and liability of infringement of copyright in the work created. These gaps become particularly evident in recent Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) filed in Delhi High Court[1] in December, 2024-wherein the petitioners have highlighted the challenges of AI-generated content into sharper focus in India. Globally, frameworks such as the European Union AI Act[2] (“EU AI Act”) offers valuable insights on how structured governance can address these issues.

This article (“Article”) delves into the interplay of AI and copyright law in India, which arise from AI-generated content, and analyses the recent legal developments, and derives understanding from the EU regulatory framework. The article also briefly analyses the position taken by the Indian and the US courts on these issues and provides recommendations for establishing a structured approach to AI governance in India in the realm of intellectual property rights matters.

The Case for Legal Reform: A Recent PIL in Focus

A PIL was filed recently in December 2025 before the Delhi High Court by professional model Kanchan Nagar, photographer Vikas Saboo, and the stock photography company ‘Images Bazaar’ (“Petitioners”). The Petitioners have alleged that the unauthorized use of their original artistic works by AI platforms, has resulted in copyright infringement, personality rights violations, and privacy breaches. The PIL, highlighting the misuse of women’s images through the deepfake technologies leading to non-consensual exploitation, – have sought amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957(“Indian Copyright Act”), particularly Section 13 and Section 14[3], to include AI-generated content under copyrighted material and stricter penalties under Section 63[4] for unauthorized AI use. The Petitioners also pointed out gaps in the IT Rules, 2021(“IT Rules”), specifically Rule 4[5], regarding intermediary obligations against harmful deepfake content. The PIL sought amendments to the Indian Copyright Act to include AI generated work under the scope of copyrighted material and the appointment of a nodal officer to address the copyright-AI related issues.

This PIL underscores an urgent need for India to transform its copyright laws to address the unique threat posed by AI technology to ensure a balance between the need for innovation through AI technology and creator’s rights and privacy.

The EU AI Act: A Blueprint for addressing Copyright-related issues in India

Risk-based Framework

The EU AI Act represents a pioneering effort to regulate artificial intelligence comprehensively across the European Union. It adopts a risk-based framework, categorizing AI systems into four levels of risk: unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, and minimal risk. Systems posing unacceptable risks, such as AI for social scoring or manipulative practices, are outright banned. High-risk systems, including AI tools in healthcare and law enforcement, are subject to strict compliance requirements.

The risk-based approach of the EU AI Act extends beyond safety and ethics and indirectly addresses copyright concerns. High-risk AI systems must adhere to stringent data disclosure, accounting, and data governance standards. For instance, AI developers are required to disclose the training datasets used, ensuring that copyrighted materials are not employed without proper authorization. Furthermore, Article 52 mandates that AI-generated content must be clearly labelled, preventing any confusion between the work created by humans and those generated by machines.

Although the EU AI Act does not explicitly focus on copyright, it aligns closely with the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”). Notable intersections include Article 4 of the DSM Directive, which permits text and data mining for research purposes while including rights holders the ability to opt out of the exploitation. The EU AI Act emphasizes adherence to existing copyright regulations during the processes of dataset collection and model development. In addition, the AI Liability Directive complements the AI Act by creating accountability frameworks for damages arising from AI systems including intellectual property violations. These measures collectively create a robust system that protects creators while fostering responsible AI development.

Compliance Mechanisms

To ensure compliance with both the EU AI Act and existing copyright laws, several mechanisms have been established. Developers of AI systems must maintain detailed technical documentation that demonstrates the adherence to copyright rules. Users and deployers of AI systems are obligated to secure proper licensing for any copyrighted datasets they utilize. Regulatory authorities have the power to audit datasets and impose penalties for violations, reinforcing the importance of legal compliance with the data.

By integrating transparency and accountability measures, the EU AI Act not only provides for ethical use of artificial intelligence but also strengthens safeguards against intellectual property infringements. 

Copyright Regulation in India: Current Framework and Gaps

In India, copyright law is governed by the Indian Copyright Act. Obviously, this law was drafted before the emergence of AI and thus lacks the provisions specifically dealing with copyright and ownership issues related to AI-generated content. This lack of recognition leads to ambiguity in addressing the issues pertaining to the ownership of AI-generated content and raises questions about who holds the rights to such works, whether it is the developer of the AI system, the user, or the public domain.

The Indian Copyright Act protects original works (literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic), under Section 13 ensuring creators’ rights. Further, Section 17 designated the author as the first owner, and Section 51[6] deals with copyright infringement. However, these provisions do not cover the creation of AI-related work or AI-related copyright issues.

Indian Copyright Act thus lacks clarity on AI-generated works, with no recognition of AI as an author or clear ownership rules. It also does not address the use of copyrighted material in training AI systems. Additionally, enforcement challenges arise as AI systems are not held accountable for copyright infringement under traditional legal frameworks, and the IT Act does not cover AI-specific misuse like deepfakes.

Judicial Perspectives: Positions of Indian and U.S. Courts

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India[7], recognized the right to privacy as a right under the Indian constitution. The decision was pivotal in establishing the constitutional basis for protecting personal information from unauthorized exploitation, including in the context of emerging technologies like AI technology. The court emphasised that the right to privacy does not limit to the physical space but extends to the digital realm including the use of personal data by AI systems.

In alignment with the broader emphasis on regulatory frameworks, the Supreme Court in Chaitanya Rohilla v. Union of India underscored the need for widespread regulation and encouraged government consultations with stakeholders to create a balanced legal framework. While the case emphasised that the right of privacy extends beyond physical needs to the digital realms, it has highlighted the growing need for a comprehensive legal framework to address the challenges posed by emerging and evolving technology.

Recent US cases, including Andersen v. Stability AI (2024)[8], New York Times v. OpenAI (2024)[9], and Concord Music Group v. Anthropic (2024)[10], highlight growing judicial scepticism towards AI companies’ broad fair use defences. These cases demonstrate growing scrutiny of whether AI developers infringe copyright by using copyrighted material to train their models without authorization. These cases suggest that the traditionally ‘fair use for general utility’ arguments applied to technologies like VCRs and photocopying may no longer be applicable in the context of AI itself.  This shift suggests that such ‘traditional fair use’ arguments may no longer suffice in the context of AI.

Recommendations for Addressing AI-Related Copyright Challenges in India

With the increasing influence of AI on content creation and existing gaps in India’s legal framework, the following recommendations seek to bridge these gaps and safeguard them.

  1. Clarifying Ownership and Liability in AI-Created Content: The Indian Copyright Act needs to be updated to explicitly cover AI-generated works, defining authorship and ownership when AI systems create content. Amendments should clarify who holds rights over such works-whether the AI developer, user, or the public domain. Also, liability for AI-generated copyright infringement should also be addressed for clear accountability.
  2. Data Governance Framework: A robust data governance framework should regulate the use of copyrighted datasets for AI training. Indian copyright law must specify whether training datasets require licensing and how fair use principles apply. Transparency on dataset sources and consent mechanisms must be mandated to prevent unintended copyright violations.
  3. Transparency Obligations: AI developers and platforms should be required to disclose AI-generated content, including labelling outputs and providing metadata about the content’s origin. This would ensure accountability, reduce misrepresentation, and protect creators from unauthorized exploitation of their works.
  4. Establishment of a Specialized Regulatory Body: A dedicated regulatory body should be established to oversee AI-related copyright issues, handle disputes, monitor compliance, and offer guidance. This body would facilitate collaboration between creators, AI developers, and policymakers to address emerging challenges.

Conclusion

The intersection of AI and copyright law presents complex challenges and opportunities. While the EU AI Act offers a robust framework for regulating AI’s impact on intellectual property in the Indian market, India must adapt its copyright laws to address these emerging challenges. India will have an in-depth opportunity to promote innovation by implementing global best practices and fostering stakeholder consultations to promote the creation of a balanced legal framework.

References:

[1] Chaitanya Rohilla v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 677/2021 and C.M. Nos.1638/2021, 15937/2021 & 16195/2021.
[2] Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) (Text with EEA relevance).
[3] The Copyright Act, 1957 (14 Of 1957), ss. 13, 14.
[4] The Copyright Act, 1957 (14 Of 1957), s. 63.
[5] Rule 4, Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
[6] The Copyright Act, 1957 (14 Of 1957), ss. 13, 17, 51.
[7] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired). vs Union of India and Ors., 2017, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, (2017) 10 SCC 1
[8] Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., 3:23-cv-00201, (N.D. Cal.)
[9] The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 1:23-cv-11195, (S.D.N.Y.)
[10] Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, 3:23-cv-01092, (M.D. Tenn.)

Gaurav Gupta is the Founder and Managing Partner at Bridge Counsels & Pranathi Prasad, is a fourth- year student of B. Com LLB at BMS Law College, Bengaluru, and interned at Bridge Counsels.