Publisher's Synopsis
The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents a unique set of challenges and opportunities for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) law in India. Traditional IPR laws, such as the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Patents Act, 1970, are largely human-centric, focusing on the creations and inventions of natural persons. As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated and capable of generating creative works and inventions autonomously, the existing legal framework faces significant questions regarding authorship, inventorship, ownership, and infringement.1
Key Areas of Interaction:
Copyright: The Copyright Act, 1957 grants protection to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works.2 A key issue is whether AI-generated works can be considered "original" and who should be recognized as the "author" - the AI itself, the programmer, or the user who provided the prompts.3 The Indian Copyright Office maintains that copyright protection is exclusively granted to works created by human authors. Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957 specifies that for computer-generated works, the person causing the work to be created is considered the author. This has implications for AI-generated content, where the level of human intervention becomes crucial in determining authorship. A notable case, involving an AI system named 'RAGHAV' and its artwork 'Suryast', initially faced rejection for lacking a human author but was later granted protection when a natural person was named as a co-author. This highlights the ambiguity and evolving interpretation in this domain.
Patents: The Patents Act, 1970 protects novel, non-obvious, and useful inventions. The challenge with AI lies in determining inventorship when AI systems independently contribute to inventions. Section 6 of the Patents Act, 1970 restricts the term "inventor" to a human individual, thus excluding AI as an inventor. While AI-generated inventions may meet the criteria of novelty and industrial applicability, the requirement of a human inventor poses a significant hurdle. There's an ongoing debate about whether the human effort in training AI models constitutes sufficient inventive contribution.
Trademarks: The Trade Marks Act, 1999 protects brand identities. If AI is used to generate logos or brand names, questions arise about the originality and distinctiveness of such marks and who should own the trademark. Current Indian law requires a human applicant for trademark registration, meaning that the individual or entity using AI to create a brand identity must register it under their name.
The intersection of AI and IPR law in India presents several challenges Authorship/Inventorship: Current laws primarily recognize human creators. Determining authorship and inventorship for AI-generated outputs is complex.
Defining "Significant Human Input" Establishing clear guidelines to determine the level of human involvement required for granting IPR to AI-assisted or AI-generated creations.
Developing frameworks to determine responsibility for IP infringement by AI.
The current legal landscape in India is still evolving in this area. While the government has stated that the existing IPR framework is adequately equipped, ongoing discussions and judicial interpretations suggest a need for adaptation to keep pace with the rapid advancements in AI technology. Balancing the protection of intellectual property with the promotion of AI innovation will be crucial for India's technological future.
