Source: Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research

Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research presents a comparative analysis of how copyright law addresses authorship for AI-generated works in India, the United States, and the European Union. The study highlights the disruption caused by generative AI to traditional legal frameworks, which are fundamentally based on human creativity. It differentiates between works that are merely AI-assisted, involving significant human input, and those generated by fully autonomous AI, which pose a greater challenge to existing copyright doctrines. The research adopts a doctrinal and comparative method, examining statutes, judicial rulings, and policy guidelines in the three jurisdictions.

The paper finds that while approaches differ, all three legal systems are struggling to accommodate AI. India's framework is noted for its flexibility, though it leads to ambiguity. The United States adheres to a strict human authorship requirement, effectively denying copyright to fully AI-generated works. The European Union offers a middle ground with its "author’s own intellectual creation" standard, but this also creates uncertainty. A core issue identified is the shared human-centric foundation of these laws, making them ill-equipped to handle creations with little to no human intervention.

Consequently, the analysis points to a need for significant legal reform to address the lack of uniformity, the inadequacy in dealing with autonomous AI, and the resulting uncertainty over ownership and enforcement. The author advocates for a rethinking of the authorship concept, suggesting potential solutions such as modifying existing laws, creating a sui generis (unique) form of protection for AI works, or developing hybrid models that account for varying degrees of human involvement. The study concludes that timely reform is essential to maintain legal relevance and promote innovation in the age of AI.