Copyright Protection For AI-Generated Works: Legal Gaps And Future Solutions
- IJLLR Journal
- Jun 12
- 2 min read
Adv. Shubhika Pant
Adv. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey
ABSTRACT
The exponential advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has revolutionized the creation of content across various domains such as literature, music, visual arts, journalism, and software development. AI systems, especially those leveraging machine learning and generative algorithms, can now autonomously produce sophisticated works with minimal or no human intervention. This rapid evolution has outpaced the current legal frameworks governing intellectual property, especially copyright law, which is inherently predicated on the idea of human authorship and originality. Consequently, a significant legal gap has emerged regarding the protection, ownership, and regulation of AI-generated works.
This research paper critically examines the foundational challenges posed by AI-generated content to the existing copyright regimes. It explores the philosophical and legal tensions surrounding authorship, originality, and ownership—principles that traditional copyright laws were not designed to address in the context of non-human creators. Through a comparative legal analysis, the paper highlights how jurisdictions like the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, and India differ in their treatment of AI- generated content. While the U.S. maintains a strict stance requiring human authorship, the U.K. allows limited recognition for computer-generated works. However, none offer comprehensive legal certainty for fully autonomous AI outputs.
Key challenges identified include the inability to attribute authorship when human input is minimal or absent, ambiguity in assessing the originality of algorithmically generated content, and uncertainty around ownership and liability in cases of infringement. Additionally, inconsistencies across national laws create complications for global stakeholders seeking to develop or commercialize AI-generated creative works.
The paper also explores emerging jurisprudence and policy debates. Case studies such as Thaler v. Perlmutter in the U.S. highlight the current legal orthodoxy, while ongoing consultations by international bodies like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) suggest growing awareness of the issue. However, a cohesive global legal standard remains elusive.
