By Madiya Mushtaq
The idea of the article came through after I read the article in this newspaper about the advent of the usage of AI tools to write articles, papers and many other things these days. Having used the tool myself, a straightforward query may come to my mind: Who is the copyright holder of the articles written by AI ? ChatGPT, because ChatGPT wrote the output? Or is it OpenAI because this output was produced by their software? Me, Since I created the prompt that produced the output?
For a predetermined period of time, the right owner—a legal person—is granted exclusive rights by intellectual property rights, including copyright and related rights. These rights permit the protection of the work, creation, or innovation and permit the licensing of royalties to be collected. The owner of a right must fulfill the legal requirements in order for it to be awarded. As a signatory to all significant international treaties and accords pertaining to the protection of intellectual property rights, India provides sufficient legal protection for works created by legal entities under the Copyright Law and utilizes the Patent system to safeguard inventions. As a result, the Indian IPR Regime does not need to establish a distinct category of rights for AI and associated technologies.
The Copyright Act of 1957, which protects authors and creators of works, governs copyright in India. The Act specifies authorship according to the kind of work, encompassing sound recordings, cinematographic films, musical compositions, theatrical works, literary works, and visual works.
Taking a few of them first, the Copyright Act specifies that the author of a literary or theatrical work is the one who really creates the work. The author of literary works created by computers is recognized by the Copyright Act as the person who created the work using a computer. Nevertheless, the Copyright Act is silent on AI-generated works; nevertheless, if we attempt to read the extant provision—Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957—we find that “author” is defined as “the person who causes the work to be created.”
This clause can be read liberally to encompass those who give an AI system the information or instructions it needs to produce computer-generated art. The author of a work should be the “first owner” of the copyright, according to the Copyright Act, which also addresses copyright ownership. The person who generates the work by providing input or instructions will be considered the first owner of the copyright for an AI-generated work, as per the aforementioned sections. As a result, these sections recognize the authors of the final content—those who supply data to AI tools or provide them instructions—and their contributions.
The Current position of law
So, let us circle back to the question, who really owns the copyright to the content generated by various AI tools?
- ChatGPT?
Because Indian copyright law requires the person claiming the copyright to be a natural person, ChatGPT cannot be deemed the author. According to Section 17 of the Indian Copyright Act, authors are only individuals. Generally speaking, only individuals are included in the definition of “persons,” but organizations like corporations may be granted copyright (Section 18) by an individual for a finite amount of time upon agreement. According to Section 17, the original copyright of the product will always belong to the human, barring a contract to the contrary. Furthermore, it is obvious that the act’s design is human-centric. For instance, the claimant’s name, nationality, and address must be included on the copyright registration application.
- AI developer?
The entirety of the developers’ claim would be governed by their “Terms-of-Use” guidelines. Unless a contract specifically states otherwise, a developer who states that they would own the rights to work produced by their AIs will own the copyright for that work. Nevertheless, the “Terms-of-use” for the majority of widely used AIs, such ChatGPT/BingChat, do not assert copyright over the results produced. It does not seem reasonable, even on the surface, to give developers the right to claim copyright ownership of items created by AI. When someone uses Microsoft Paint to create a painting, the situation is similar in that Microsoft cannot legitimately claim copyright on the output.
3.Me?
This is where the intriguing interaction between the law and generative-AI begins. In 1994, the Indian Copyright Act was modified to take into consideration scenarios in which computer-generated artistic creations could occur. The amendment added a new section to the legislation, Section 2(d)(vi), which states clearly that the person who caused the development of computer-generated works is the author of those works.
Since, the “prompt-giver” is the one who is generating the work, one could be tempted to conclude that this clarifies the status of law in India. But merely typing a single line at a prompt does not provide copyright protection for a work. An author is entitled to protection under copyright law if their creative work satisfies the requirements necessary to qualify as a “original” product.
The “sweat of the brow” theory, which holds that an author obtains copyright rights based on basic diligence and effort put in by them, is the lowest bar for awarding copyright protection to the Author (this criterion is not applicable in India). The University of London Press Ltd. v. Tutorial Press Ltd. case, in which a publisher assembled examination materials made available by the University of London, is crucial to comprehending it.
The university filed a challenge, claiming that it violated the copyright of the professors who invested their time and expertise in writing those articles. The publisher countered that the papers could not be protected by copyright because they were not “original” because they were derived from an already-existing body of information. The court decided that, despite the fact that the paper was developed using pre-existing knowledge, it nonetheless qualifies for copyright protection because some effort was made.
In India, when deciding on the “originality” requirement for India, the Supreme Court took into account several criteria. The Canadian standard was chosen, which stipulates that the piece in question ought to be the result of the author’s judgment and talent. Additionally, the use of judgment and skill shouldn’t be reduced to the point where it can only be done mechanically. This also restates the argument against protecting an output produced by a single line prompt.
Copyright is deemed to apply too stringently to novelty, and there is no justification for AI-generated works to be subject to a lower bar. Therefore, regardless of whether they were taken from previously existing bodies of knowledge, AI-generated works can satisfy the necessary standard of “originality” in India.
Conclusion
In just a few months, generative AI has become inescapably ingrained in our daily lives. It will undoubtedly expand more dramatically as a result of recent advancements and the entry of major tech companies like Google and Amazon. Since a large portion of invention and creativity going forward would require AI aid to make chores easier, India’s existing policy of not extending copyright protection to any AI-generated material will no longer be possible.
The complex and fascinating landscape that arises from the junction of AI and copyright in India calls for careful regulation and a nuanced understanding. With AI technology developing at a rapid pace, conventional ideas of authorship and intellectual property rights are being challenged by its capacity to produce original work. To ensure that both human creators and AI-generated works are sufficiently protected, India’s current legal structure needs to change to meet these difficulties.
At this pivotal moment, India has the opportunity to set the standard for creative policy development that strikes a balance between the needs of users, artists, and AI developers. Not only must current laws be changed, but stakeholders like legislators, legal professionals, technologists, and the creative community must also be encouraged to engage in cooperative discourse.
The ultimate objective should be to establish a legal framework that protects the rights of all parties concerned while promoting innovation. By doing this, India can guarantee that society reaps the greatest benefits from AI while preserving a just and equitable system for the protection of intellectual property. Although the road ahead is difficult, India may successfully negotiate the difficulties of AI and copyright with careful consideration and preemptive action.
The below mentioned poem was generated by AI, I was the prompt giver- now be a peach and tell me who deserves the copyright?
ChatGPT emerged, our new machine.
With algorithms grand, it speaks so bright,
Guiding our queries, day and night.
Oh marvel, oh wonder, this digital sage,
Words on command, our thoughts it gauges.
Yet, can it fathom the depths of the heart,
Or mimic the soul in every part?
A marvel of tech, no doubt it seems,
Our prose machine, fulfilling dreams.
But in its circuits, does wisdom lay?
Or just a mirror to our dismay?
So hail the chatbot, our modern muse,
Crafting our thoughts, as we amuse.
Yet ponder, dear reader, at what true cost,
In this grand game, what have we lost?
Views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the editorial stance of Kashmir Observer
The author is an Advocate, Supreme Court of India and can be reached at [email protected]
Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now
Be Part of Quality Journalism |
Quality journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce and despite all the hardships we still do it. Our reporters and editors are working overtime in Kashmir and beyond to cover what you care about, break big stories, and expose injustices that can change lives. Today more people are reading Kashmir Observer than ever, but only a handful are paying while advertising revenues are falling fast. |
| ACT NOW |
| MONTHLY | Rs 100 |  |
| YEARLY | Rs 1000 | |
| LIFETIME | Rs 10000 | |
