AI-Generated Works: Authorship, Ownership, And Constitutional Recognition: A Comparative Study Of The EU, US, And India
- IJLLR Journal
- Apr 27
- 2 min read
Prachi Garg, National Law University, Delhi
CHAPTER 01- INTRODUCTION:
The way the world views creativity and invention has changed as a result of the development of artificial intelligence. Today, machines are capable of creating paintings, poetry, music, and even inventions that previously required human creativity. The conventional wisdom that authorship and ownership in intellectual property law belong exclusively to humans is being challenged by this quick change. The legal definitions of "authorship" and "originality" are becoming increasingly ambiguous as artificial intelligence starts to function as a creative collaborator or even as an independent creator.
The fundamental tenet of copyright law has always been authorship. It guarantees that artists are acknowledged and have authority over their creations. But it becomes challenging to determine the true author when a computer or algorithm creates a piece with little human input. Which party should now own the work—the programmer, the person entering the instructions, the system's owner, or the work itself not be copyrightable at all? These issues challenge the limits of creativity, responsibility, and rights in a digital society, making them not only technical but also moral and constitutional in nature.
Different jurisdictions have attempted to address these issues in their own peculiar ways. The United States emphasizes that creativity must originate from human intellect by maintaining the requirement of clear human authorship for copyright protection. With its recent Artificial Intelligence Act and copyright directives, the European Union has begun to establish more comprehensive frameworks that promote openness and human supervision in the application of AI. In India as well many questions remain unanswered in the context of autonomous AI systems despite the fact that the Copyright Act defines an author of a computer-generated work as the person who causes the work to be created. When taken as a whole, these various strategies demonstrate that there is still a need for a consistent and equitable solution to determine the aforementioned issues.
