When Creation has no Creator: COPYRIGHT'S REAL CRISIS

When AI Creates and the Law Falls Silent

The law has always been comfortable asking who created this, because the answer was always human. That certainty is now collapsing. The Delhi High Court matter involving Stephen Thaler and his AI system DABUS brings this issue into sharp focus. Indian copyright law, rooted in the Copyright Act, 1957, is built on the assumption that creativity originates from a human mind. Section 2(d) defines an “author” in distinctly human terms, while Section 13 grants protection only to “original works,” a concept long tied to human skill, labour, and judgment. Even Section 17, which deals with ownership, presumes a legally recognisable human or juristic person. Fully autonomous AI disrupts all of this. If a work is created with zero human input, there is no clear author to satisfy these provisions. The result is a legal vacuum where such works may fall outside copyright protection altogether, making them vulnerable to unrestricted use. For creators, this is not abstract, the thin line between AI-assisted and purely AI-generated content could determine ownership, monetisation, and enforcement rights, yet the statute itself offers no precise boundary.

The Grey Zone, The Risk, and The Way Forward

The real challenge lies in navigating this grey zone without breaking the structure of copyright law. Recognising AI as an author would stretch Section 2(d) beyond its intent, while denying protection entirely risks pushing valuable creative outputs into the public domain. India’s current stance, seen in the Delhi High Court’s direction for reconsideration, is not outright rejection, but cautious restraint, leaving interpretative space without immediate legal overhaul. A balanced way forward could involve statutory clarification: distinguishing AI-assisted works (where human authorship remains) from autonomous outputs, introducing disclosure obligations for AI-generated content, and possibly developing a limited rights framework that still anchors ownership to a human actor, such as the developer or user, without fully recognising AI as a legal author. This is where CTB acts as a support. By breaking down provisions like Sections 2(d), 13, and 17 into practical guidance, CTB can help creators understand where they stand, avoid risky assumptions about ownership, and adopt smarter, legally aware content practices in an ecosystem where the law is still catching up.