AI Can Create Original Work, But Cannot Be Its Author
India’s Copyright Office has rejected an application seeking to recognise an artificial intelligence system as the legal author of an artwork. The decision involves DUSTan AI system developed by US computer scientist Stephen L. Thaler, and could become an important reference point in India’s evolving approach to AI-generated creative works.
The order was passed on August 31 by Registrar of Copyrights Unnat P. Pandit in connection with an application for an artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.”
Thaler had identified DABUS, or Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, as the author of the work.
DABUS Cannot Be a Legal Author
The Copyright Office held that DABUS cannot be recognised as an author under the existing Indian Copyright Act.
The key issue was the legal meaning of an author in the case of computer-generated artistic works. Under Section 2(d)(vi), authorship is attributed to the person who causes the work to be created.
The Registrar concluded that an AI system does not qualify as a natural or legally recognised person. Giving an AI system independent legal authorship would effectively create a new category of legal personality, something that would require legislative action by Parliament.
But the Artwork Was Considered Original
The decision contains an important distinction.
The Copyright Office did not conclude that AI-generated artwork can never receive copyright protection. Instead, it found that “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” met the statutory threshold for originality.
The artwork was considered independently created and contained its own arrangement of visual elements, colours, tones and spatial relationships.
This means the ruling focuses specifically on who can legally be considered the authorrather than automatically excluding AI-generated expression from copyright protection.
Why Stephen Thaler Became Important to the Case
The Registrar found that Thaler had a sufficiently direct connection with the creation of the specific artwork. He developed and configured DABUS, supplied inputs and initiated the process through which the artwork was generated.
However, Thaler declined an opportunity to amend the application and identify himself as the author. Since the application continued to name DABUS as the author, the Copyright Office rejected it.
A Significant Signal for India’s AI Industry
The decision establishes an important legal boundary for AI creators and businesses in India.
AI systems can generate creative expression, but under the current legal framework they cannot independently hold the position of an author. Human involvement and legally recognised authorship therefore remain central to obtaining copyright protection.
As generative AI becomes increasingly common in advertising, publishing, design, entertainment and software development, questions surrounding ownership and authorship are likely to become more frequent.
Summary
India’s Copyright Office has rejected DABUS as the legal author of an AI-generated artwork, holding that an AI system cannot qualify as an author under current Indian law. However, the artwork itself was found to satisfy the originality requirement. The decision therefore distinguishes between AI-generated creativity and legal authorship, leaving human authorship at the centre of copyright protection.
Image Source