Artificial intelligence has changed how businesses and creators produce content. Text, images, music, software, videos and other creative works can now be generated or developed with the assistance of AI tools in a matter of minutes. While this has created new opportunities for businesses, it has also raised an important question under copyright law in India: when AI is involved in creating a work, who can claim copyright over it?

The answer is not always straightforward. The Copyright Act, 1957 contains a provision dealing with computer-generated works, but modern generative AI raises questions that were not specifically contemplated when the legislation was enacted. The nature of the human contribution, the way the work was created and the ownership arrangements may all be relevant when determining copyright protection.

What Does Indian Copyright Law Say About AI-Generated Works?

Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act provides that, in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created is treated as the author.

This provision is important in the context of artificial intelligence because it provides a statutory reference point for identifying authorship in computer-generated works. However, generative AI systems are capable of producing increasingly sophisticated outputs based on prompts, instructions, selections and subsequent modifications by users. This makes the question of authorship more nuanced.

AI itself is not a human or legal person capable of owning copyright in the same way as an individual or legal entity. The more relevant question is therefore the role of the human user and the circumstances in which the final work was produced.

Does Using AI Affect Copyright Protection?

The use of AI does not automatically determine whether a work is protected by copyright. There can be a significant difference between simply entering a prompt and accepting an AI-generated output and using AI as part of a broader creative process involving substantial human input.

For example, a person may develop the underlying concept, provide detailed creative instructions, generate multiple outputs, select particular elements, substantially edit the material and exercise creative control over the final work. The copyright analysis may be different where a person provides a basic instruction and uses the resulting output without meaningful creative intervention.

Copyright protection in India also depends on originality. The Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak [Civil Appeal No.6472 of 2004], dated December 12, 2007, rejected the “sweat of the brow” approach and held that a work must reflect the author’s skill and judgement and display at least a minimal degree of creativity. Who counts as the author under Section 2(d)(vi) and whether the work is original enough to be protected are therefore separate questions. For AI-assisted works, the second question may depend on the nature and extent of the human creative choices involved, and Indian courts have not yet laid down a settled test for it.

Human contribution can therefore become an important consideration when assessing copyright protection for AI-generated or AI-assisted works. However, there is currently no simple statutory test stating that a particular amount of human involvement automatically results in copyright protection.

Who Owns AI-Generated Content Created for a Business?

The ownership question becomes particularly important when AI is used by employees, freelancers, consultants or external agencies.

A business may engage an advertising agency to develop a campaign using AI tools, or an employee may use generative AI while preparing software, marketing material or other content. In such situations, payment for the work does not necessarily resolve every intellectual property issue.

Under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the author is generally the first owner of a work. There are exceptions, including for works made in the course of employment under a contract of service, where the employer is the first owner in the absence of a contrary agreement, and for photographs, paintings, portraits, engravings and cinematograph films made for valuable consideration at the instance of another person. Software or content created by an independent contractor or agency does not automatically belong to the business that pays for it, and ownership may need to be transferred by assignment.

An assignment under Section 19 must be in writing and signed by the assignor. If the assignment does not specify the duration or territory, the Act applies default positions: a five-year term and the territory of India. A business relying on AI-assisted work should check that its contracts address these points expressly and say who is treated as the person who “causes” the work to be created when an employee or contractor uses AI tools.

The relevant employment agreement, consultancy agreement, service agreement or intellectual property assignment should be examined to determine how ownership and permitted use of the resulting work are addressed. Agreements may also need to deal with third-party content, warranties, confidentiality and responsibility for potential copyright infringement. Clear contractual arrangements become especially important where AI-assisted works form part of a company’s valuable intellectual property portfolio.

Copyright Registration and AI-Generated Works

Businesses using AI to create commercially important material may consider copyright registration in India after assessing the authorship and ownership position. Registration does not replace the need to determine who owns the rights in the work. An application should accurately describe the work and the applicant’s interest in it. Where AI has played a significant role in its creation, maintaining records of the human contribution, creative decisions, edits and development process may also be useful.

For businesses, these records can become relevant during licensing, investment, acquisition or intellectual property due diligence. Copyright registration may form part of a wider strategy for documenting important creative and digital assets.

Can AI Training Infringe Copyright?

Copyright concerns surrounding AI are not limited to ownership of AI-generated outputs. A separate issue concerns the use of copyrighted works to train AI systems.

This issue was considered by the Delhi High Court in ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI OpCo LLC,, CS(COMM) 1028/2024 (I.A. 45300/2024), which involved allegations concerning the use of copyrighted material in AI training and outputs. In its July 24, 2026, order, the Court considered questions concerning storage and use of copyrighted works for training, AI-generated responses and the applicability of Section 52 of the Copyright Act. The Court ultimately declined to grant an interim injunction and, at the prima facie stage, held that OpenAI’s storage of ANI’s works did not amount to copyright infringement, while considering OpenAI’s reliance on ANI’s works for training its large language models fell within the fair-dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a), and so did not amount to infringement, and that the ChatGPT outputs were not substantial reproductions of its works.. The Court also expressly clarified that its observations would not determine the final outcome of the suit.

ANI has since challenged the rejection of interim relief before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. On September 15, 2026, the Division Bench issued notice on the appeal and listed the matter for further hearing on December 5, 2026.

The decision is significant for the developing relationship between artificial intelligence and intellectual property law, although the broader legal position remains subject to further judicial consideration. Separately, a committee constituted by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) released Part I of a Working Paper on Generative AI and Copyright in December 2025, proposing a hybrid model under which AI developers could use lawfully accessed copyrighted works for training in return for statutory remuneration to rights holders. The proposal has not been acted on.

Using Third-Party Copyrighted Material with AI

Businesses should also consider the copyright implications of providing third-party material to AI systems. Photographs, articles, reports, artwork, publications and other protected material may be subject to copyright, licensing or confidentiality restrictions.

Before incorporating such material into an AI workflow, businesses should consider whether they have the necessary rights or license to make the intended use. The terms of the relevant AI platform may also need to be reviewed, particularly where confidential or commercially sensitive information is involved.

This is increasingly relevant as businesses integrate AI tools into content creation, software development, marketing and other routine operations.

AI-Generated Content and Copyright Infringement

AI-generated content may sometimes resemble an existing copyrighted work. Similarity by itself does not necessarily establish copyright infringement. The legal assessment depends on factors such as the nature of the works, the rights involved, the extent of similarity and the circumstances in which the material was created or used.

Businesses should therefore exercise appropriate caution before commercially exploiting AI-generated material that closely resembles an existing photograph, illustration, publication, character or other protected work.

Where a dispute arises, the ownership records, creation history, contractual arrangements and nature of the alleged copying may all become relevant.

What Should Businesses Keep in Mind?

As AI becomes part of ordinary creative and commercial workflows, businesses should pay attention not only to the final output but also to how that output was created. Maintaining records of significant human contributions, reviewing intellectual property provisions in employment and commercial agreements, checking third-party licensing rights and considering copyright registration for commercially important works can help businesses maintain a clearer intellectual property record.

The objective is not to treat every AI-generated output as either automatically protected or automatically unprotected. Instead, the copyright position should be assessed based on the nature of the work, the human contribution, ownership arrangements and the circumstances in which the work is created and used.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can AI-generated content be copyrighted in India?

There is currently no blanket rule that every AI-generated work is automatically protected or automatically excluded from copyright protection. The Copyright Act contains a provision concerning computer-generated works, while its application to modern generative AI continues to develop.

Who is the legal author of a computer-generated work?

Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act provides that, for a computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, the person who causes the work to be created is treated as the author.

Does using AI automatically prevent copyright protection?

No. The use of AI as a tool does not, by itself, determine whether copyright protection is available. The nature and extent of human contribution and the circumstances of creation may need to be examined.

Can a company own AI-assisted content?

A company may have rights in AI-assisted content where the applicable legal and contractual requirements are satisfied. Ownership should be addressed through appropriate employment, consultancy, service and assignment arrangements.

Can AI-generated content infringe someone else’s copyright?

Yes, AI-generated content can raise copyright concerns where protected material is reproduced, adapted or otherwise used without the necessary rights. Whether infringement has occurred depends on the particular facts.

Should businesses register AI-generated content?

For commercially important works, businesses may consider copyright registration in India after reviewing the authorship and ownership position. Registration should accurately reflect the nature of the work and the rights being claimed.

Conclusion

AI is changing how creative works are produced, but the fundamental questions of copyright ownership, authorship, intellectual property rights and infringement remain relevant. India’s existing copyright framework provides a starting point for addressing computer-generated works, while modern generative AI continues to raise questions requiring further legal development.

For businesses using AI, maintaining clear ownership records, documenting meaningful human contributions, reviewing contractual and licensing arrangements and considering copyright registration for important works can help create a more structured approach to managing AI-related intellectual property.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of copyright law to AI-generated and AI-assisted works may depend on the facts of each matter and developments in legislation and case law. Specific legal advice should be obtained where required.