Brains of Silicon, Rights of Flesh: Owning AI Creations in the 21st Century

By : Abha Mishra

2nd Year Law Student, IILM University, Greater Noida

Introduction

Ever since Artificial Intelligence (AI) came into existence, it has remained a crucial and controversial point of discussion. From factory floors to smartphones, AI’s footprint is visible everywhere—its influence is unmistakable and growing. The digital world now appears to have consumed the real world, blurring the boundaries between the two.

From AI-generated music, artwork, literature to AI-designed inventions and architecture, the outputs of artificial intelligence increasingly rival—and sometimes exceed—human ingenuity. With this transformation arises a fundamental legal question:

Despite the intelligence and creativity of AI systems, they cannot bear legal responsibilities or intent. This brings forth a modern paradox:

Classification of AI-Generated Works

AI-generated creations can broadly be classified into two categories:

1. AI-Assisted Works:Created with significant human involvement, where AI acts as a tool to support the human creator.

2. AI-Autonomous Works:Generated with minimal or no human input, where the AI independently produces the content.

This distinction is critical, as Indian Intellectual Property (IP) law currently recognizes only natural persons as authors or inventors, raising a dilemma when a non-human entity generates original work.

IPR Laws in India and AI

Indian laws that govern protection of inventions and creative ownership include:

• The Copyright Act, 1957

• The Patents Act, 1970

• The Designs Act, 2000

However, these statutes do not contain provisions explicitly addressing non-human authorship.

Copyright Law in Focus

Under Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957, authorship for computer-generated works is attributed to “the person who causes the work to be created”. Thus, AI software itself cannot be recognized as an author.

Case Study: RAGHAV and the 'Suryat' Painting

In 2020, a landmark case arose involving a painting titled “Suryat”, inspired by Van Gogh’s Starry Night, where AI system RAGHAV (Robust Artificial Intelligent Graphics and Art Visualizer) and Ankit Sahni were listed as co-authors.

Initially, the Indian Copyright Office rejected the application listing RAGHAV as the sole author, and later even co-authorship was denied, citing Sections 2(d)(iii) and 2(d)(vi) of the Act. Hence, AI could not be legally acknowledged as an author.

Global Approaches to AI and IPR

The international legal approach to AI-generated works varies significantly:

Major AI platforms (e.g., OpenAI, Adobe Firefly, Midjourney, Google DeepMind) address IP concerns via terms of service—rights are typically granted to users, not the AI systems.

Intersection of AI and Privacy Rights

AI also impacts fundamental rights, particularly the Right to Privacy. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognized the Right to Privacy as intrinsic to Article 21 of the Constitution.

AI systems, capable of analyzing and processing large volumes of personal data, pose significant risks of privacy violations and unauthorized surveillance.

Challenges in the Indian Legal Landscape

• Ambiguity in IP law regarding AI authorship

• No clear liability framework for autonomous AI decisions

• Risk to data protection and privacy rights

• Innovation suppression due to legal uncertainty

The Way Forward: Legal Reforms Needed

The issue of AI authorship and liability is not merely legal—it is deeply philosophical and societal.

To address emerging challenges:

1. Enact Specific AI Laws:Define ownership, authorship, and liability for AI-generated content.

2. Assign Ownership to Developers or Users:Recognize the "person who caused the creation" as the legal right-holder.

3. International Harmonization:Align Indian IP laws with evolving global standards to maintain innovation competitiveness.

4. Safeguard Public Interest:Create a framework balancing innovation, ethics, and accountability.

Conclusion

The legal ambiguity around AI-generated works in India reflects a broader global struggle to adapt traditional legal frameworks to modern technologies. As machines become more intelligent and creative, laws must evolve to remain relevant, adaptive, and ethically grounded.

The challenge of owning AI-generated work is fundamentally a human challenge—one that demands thoughtful, inclusive, and forward-looking legal reform.

As we advance into an era of silicon brains and digital creativity, we must ensure that legal rights and responsibilities evolve to preserve innovation, protect creators, and safeguard human dignity.