Historical Background vis a vis the Contemporary position of the Artificial Intelligence in Copyright Laws in India and USA

ABSTRACT

The contemporary arena of the Copyright laws are in threat, due to the entrance of Artificial Intelligence, it has created a world of many copies which look like some original work, creating a question at the originality of work by the user of such AI driven applications. The recent example of Ghibli trend is one such example which has been exemplified in the given Article. The paper forgoes the tale of the changes from the very base of the initiation of AI to the present advancements, threats and usefulness, and the question at the very important laws not only nationally but at international level. This paper also, critically analyses the legal ambit  and needed changes in the laws in USA and India, two major emerging countries at global level.

KEYWORDS - AI, Copyright, Laws, Present, Trends, USA, India, Case Study

INTRODUCTION

“In the darkness of loneliness:

the creative minds are born,

where color sits still,

and music holds us close,

where our mind runs wild

with no boundation’s and sighs

where we are the mirror of ourselves,

where no judgmental society has its ends,

just the artist and his mind

creates the beauty and the divine.”

The above-mentioned poetry simply states the relevance of the artists, be it the simple idea of the creation or the grand ideology of a movie, be it the written script of a beautiful novel or the rhythm of an astonishing sounds of any music tone, all of it is a work of art. But with beauty comes a greater responsibility of rights and with this the establishment of rights and ownership of such artistry works came into existence, the word under which such works are subjugated is popularly known as “Copyright” and the law pertaining to which it falls is called as Intellectual Property Laws; if simply stated can be known as laws related to the intangible things in the physical zone of the world.

WIPO defined the meaning of Intellectual property, “Intellectual property is referred to the creation of the minds, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce.” Further it stated that “IP is protected in law by, for example, patents, copyrights and trademarks, which enables people to earn recognition or financial benefit from what they invent or create.

Copyright is one of the types of Intellectual Property, according to WIPO “Copyright is a legal term used to describe the rights that creators have over their literary and their artistic works. Works covered by copyright range from books, music, paintings, sculptures and films, to computer programs, databases, advertisement, maps and technical drawings”.

According to the World-wide Journals (journals, 2016)regarding the historical background of India,” Copyright laws were inaugurated in 1847 during the East-India Companies’ Rule with the help of an enactment, that set the copyright terms as the authors lifetime plus 7 years, with maximum of forty-two years. This law provided a tool to the Indian government to grant compulsory licenses to publish works if the copyright holder refused posthumous publication. Copyright violation was defined as unauthorized reproduction of works for sale or export, with legal actions to be taken in the highest local civil court. The legal provisions also exerted that copyright works published as a part of sequence, such as Encyclopedias or periodicals, would belong to the publisher or conductors. Unlike the present time copyright registration was mandatory for the execution.

In 1914, a new Copyright Act, aligned with the U.K Copyright Act 1911 was put forth in India, with some changes, criminal statutes violation and 10 years term for exclusive rights included. The authored subjugated rights if the work was translated within that time frame. The 1914 Act remained in effect until the introduction of a modern legislation that was the Copyright Act 1957, which took effect in January 24, 1958 and since then it is the only law dealing with Copyright cases in India.

In the year 1790, the U.S. constitution established the principle that authors have the right to benefit from their intellectual creations for a limited period of time. Copyright law protects original works of authorship, including literary, dramatic, musical, architectural, cartographic, choreographic, pantomimic, pictorial, graphic, sculptural and audio-visual works. In 21stcentury or the contemporary era the copyright provided authors the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute their creation. It also provides, for certain works, he right to publicly perform and display them and for sound recordings, the right to perform them through digital-audio-transmission. The owner of the work can also give authorization to others to engage in these activities. However, Copyright does not protect ideas, procedures, process, slogans, principles or discoveries.

U. S Copyright laws have evolved significantly since the constitution empowered the Congress to protect authors works.

Artificial Intelligence is a branch of computer science which focuses on advanced computer systems that can mimic human intelligence and problem-solving skills. These computer system process huge amount of data, acquire the understanding of past experiences and use that information to improve their performance over the span of time. Unlike old traditional computer programs, in which human intervention was necessary to fix errors and enhance the processes, so that the Artificial Systems can modify and improve the process on their own.

The picture of AI is not new but has deep historical roots embedded in the ancient Greek history where the word “automaton” was first used which meant “acting of one’s own will”. The earliest form of “automaton” could be traced back in 400BCE where a mechanical pigeon was created by the friend of a renowned philosopher Plato.(Chandra, 2024)

In the start of the 19th century, William Paley was an Anglican priest, Utilitarian philosopher, and author of influential work on science. Paley’s most significant works apart from other books, Natural Theology (1802)based on John Ray’s Wisdom of God Manifested in the works of the Creation (1691). In Natural Theology, Paley used the analogy of the watch-both the world and the watch presuppose a maker. The book majorly affected the ideology of Charles Darwin. So, William Paley claimed that intelligent designers were required to invent complicated adaptive systems. Charles Darwin changed this philosophy in 1859 by portraying that such systems could emerge naturally through the process of selecting acting on random variation. At contemporary era evidences from the scientific and evolutionary theory put forth the most biological trait, including intelligence, advanced through Darwinian processes, with some required changes. In spite of this, many people, including a large portion of the U.S. population, continue to hold pre-Darwinian beliefs supported by political forces. The essay named “Evolution of Artificial Intelligence by Lee Spector.

In the early 1900s, the media of that time created a lot of hype around the idea of creation of artificial humans, whether or not possible to create it? The hype was so intense that the scientists started researching on this subject matter, if there is any possibility to create such artificial brain. Some creators of that era even invented some variation of what we now refer as “robots”, this word was first coined in Czech fiction play named as “Rossum’s Universal Robots” by Karel Capek in 1921. This play introduced the idea of “artificial people” which he named as robots.

Later, a Japanese professor Makoto Nishimura created the first Japanese robot, named “Gakuntensoku” in the year 1929.

In 1949, the computer scientist named Edmund Callis Berkley published the book called “Giant Brains, or Machines that Think” in his book Berkley put forth the comparison of the newer models of computers to human brains.

Emphasizing on the Birth of AI, in this series of essential outlook the years which were of immense importance are:

1. In 1950, Alan Turing who was an English Mathematician, Computer scientist, and Logician published in his book named “Computer Machinery and Intelligence” which put forth the test of Machine Intelligence called “Imitation Game”.

2. In 1952, A computer scientist named as Arthur Samuel who was an electrical engineer and lecturer and research associate in the Stanford University, created a program to play checkers, a first game to ever learn freely.

3. In 1955, John McCarthy who was a renowned scholar of Mathematics holding a Ph.D degree from Princeton University in the year 1951. The significant remark to know about him is that he coined the term “AI” in 1955 with reference to a summer workshop at Dartmouth College, which many leading computing experts attended. As a part of sharping his ideas about AI, he also created the programming language LISP in 1958.

4. In 1965, McCarthy turned into the founding director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (SAIL),(Roy, 2024) where research was conducted regarding the machine intelligence, graphical interactive computing, and autonomous vehicles.

The maturity of the Artificial Intelligence started from the 1958 to 1979. So, in the year 1958 John McCarthy invented LISP, which is a computer programming language, according to the Britannica that “LISP was based on the mathematical theory of recursive function (a function appears in its own definition), LISP further became a common language for AI programming, partly owing to the confluence of LISP and AI and partly because AI programs were capable of “learning” could be written in LISP as self-modifying programs. (Gabriel, 1985)

In the year 1959 the term “Machine Learning” was created by Arthur Samuel when he was giving a speech regarding the “Teaching machines to play chess better than the humans who programmed them”.

Samuel’s work was astonishing because it emphasized on that machines could not only follow instructions but also improve their behavior through experience, it furthered the base for what later came to know as Machine Learning.

First industrial breakthrough in AI industry was a robot named “UNIMATE” as it was the first industrial robot ever built, which was hydraulic manipulator arm that could perform continuous tasks, it was at first used by the car manufacturers to automate car making and welding process of car hardware. First robot was installed at General Motors plant in 1961. The robot was used to perform the tasks which were dangerous if performed by the human beings which was very useful and further enhanced the car production with efficiency.

In the year 1965 Edward Feigenbaum and Joshua Lederberg invented the first expert system which was a form of AI programmed to mimic the thinking and decision: making abilities of human experts.

Joseph Weizenbaum created first “Chatterbot” later abbreviated into “Chatbot” in 1966, it was named as “ELIZA”, a mock psychotherapist that used natural user language process to communicate with humans, “spirit” and “opportunity” and they navigated and collected information from the surface of the planet without any human intervention. In 2006 many social media platforms started utilizing the AI technologies. Microsoft launched a first gaming hardware “Kinect” that was designed to track body movements and translate it into gaming directions.

Apple released “SIRI” the first artificial assistant, and which is still widely used by people across the globe. The question is whether or not the AI can take place of human intelligence and human brain’s efficacy, after the launch of Chat GPT and its features a new danger is lurking behind human eyes. This research paper will further discuss this with other components in depth.

OVERVIEW OF COPYRIGHT LAWS IN INDIA AND USA

Though both the copyright laws are different but have the same purpose as to determine the ownership of literature, music, art and software as per the legal provisions. It provides the authors an exclusive right to use, reproduce and distribute their creation, inspiring the innovation and creativity. The fundamental principle of the copyright law is based on the idea that the creator should have control over their work and gain not only self-satisfaction but monetary gains as well. In both countries India and the U.S the copyright law focuses to balance the welfare of the creators with the public at large allowing for the dissemination of knowledge and safeguarding the cultural rights and knowledge. (Poonam Kadian, 23 February 2021)

In U.S, the regime of Copyright is adjudicated by the Copyright Act of 1976, which confirms the standards for protection and the time span of rights. Under this Act, Copyright protection is pre-programmed upon the formation of an authentic work fixed in a physical medium of expression. (Vidhya lakshmi V, 2024)

The term of Copyright typically lasts for the life of creator with plus seventy years posthumous. The legal framework also acknowledges ‘fair-use’, or Doctrine that allows restricted use of copyrighted material in absentia of consent for various motives such as criticism, comment, new reporting, teaching or research. (Gold, 2021)

This flexibility permits for a changing interlinkage between Copyrighted works and public access.

In India, copyright law is firstly governed by The Copyright Act,1957 which has undergone through many modifications to provide dynamic technological platforms. Similar to the U.S Copyright protection in India is mechanized upon the formation of an authentic work. The timeline of the copyright varies based on the kind of work, generally lasting for the life of author plus sixty years after that. Indian Copyright Law also covers legal framework for dealing fairly, which permits certain uses without the authorization, but the ambit is thin as associated to the ‘fair-use’ in the U.S. The Indian law sheds light on the value of safeguarding the local or native creators while motivating the scattering of cultural and artistic works.

In-spite of the basic resemblance between the copyright laws in India and the U.S.A, remarkable distinctions are present in their applicability and its explanation. These distinctions can clash as to how the AI Generated works are treated, mainly concerning with ownership and the role of technology in the procedure as AI persists to change, both jurisdictions continue to face difficulties in modifying their copyright frameworks to sufficiently address the difficulties of AI generated content and its inference for the ownership rights.

AI GENERATED WORKS DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES

AI created works means creative production with remarkable help or independently by Artificial Intelligence systems. (y Tan Yigitcanlar 1, 2020) These works can surround a broad scope of media, inclusive of visual art, music composition, literature and even software code. The explanation of the features of AI generated content is that the main creative procedure is driven by algorithm or method and Machine learning models, which examines extensive data sets to make new outputs based on learned designs for example, in the area of visual arts the platforms like DALL-E and DeepArt(Pavlova, 2024) made use of neural webbing to create extra-ordinary images based on text prompts or existing art works, often combine styles or themes in ways that challenges traditional or conventional notions of authorships.

In music, AI system such as open AI’s MuseNet, JukeDeck, Suno.AI, can compose authentic pieces across various genre, creates melodies and harmonies that shows diverse impact. Similarly in literature, AI language models like, GPT-3, can make logical and rational narratives, poems, and even technical and complex writings, arising questions about the essence of creativity and the role of human being an intermediary in this. These instances show the growing impact of AI in creative areas, where the bridge between the human and AI created content increasingly blurs prompting significant arguments about ownership of copyright, ethical contemplation, and the future of artistic expression. As AI technologies continues to progress, their probability to make works that are almost similar from those created by human-beings hands possess important difficulties for present laws and customary definitions of creativity.

OWNERSHIP OF AI GENERATED WORK; AUTHENTIC OR NOT?

The ownership of AI generated works presents a foundational difficulty to traditional or customary ownership diagrams that have longed explained the geographic ground of the Intellectual property.

In normal outline, the creator – often a human being who holds exclusive rights to their original or authentic work, with copyright law addresses their handout, creativity and personal expression. This diagram depends on the comprehension that the creator’s intent, skills and emotional investments are inherent to the value of the work.

However, with the arrival of AI technologies specially those who have the ability to create the content separately and freely. The bridge between the authorship and ownership becomes vague. In these instances, the AI acts as a tool that carry outs creative procedure by examining huge data sets and creating products based on learned design. This changes the role of human creator from that of a direct author to a coordinator or co-worker, responsible for providing hints, parameters and instructions to the AI. As A Result, Question Arises: who owns the right to the product or the final creation? in this pretext, ownership maybe credit to various persons, inclusive of the developer of the AI software, the person who depends on the AI software’s and create the AIcontent, or, in some explanation the AI itself. This multi- faceted connection complexes the old or traditional model, as the end work may reflect not only the creator’s intention but also the intrinsic biaseness and restriction of the AI raining data and algorithms. Furthermore, legal structure in both the U.S.A and India have yet to completely address or focus the problems or errors, leading to unpredictability about rights and protection for AI generated works. Contemporary copyright laws normally require a human author, creating a space in the legal genre of works manufactured, independently by AI. As AI specialist move forth and the creative ability increases, there is a greater increment and urgency to modify. They must not only protect the rights of human creators but also addresses the distinctive and novel contributions of AI as a dynamic or re-framing tool in the creative procedure. This advance change invites a reviewing of the very ordinary concept of authorship or ownership in the modern world where AI technology can create works that compete, and sometimes excel those created or crafted by human hands.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN THE USA

Copyright Act 1976 is the fundamental legal framework for copyright in the U.S which initiates the basic principle of copyright protection, inclusive of need for authentic and fixation in a physical form. This Act gives automated copyright protection upon design or formation, but it conventionally or in ancient manner requires human author for qualification. (А. Seralieva, 2018)

The concept of authenticity is very much important in the U.S Laws to be qualified for the copyright protection, a work must reveal a small degree of creativity. This constitutes difficulties for AI generated works, as the authenticity of content created individually by machines raises questions about the ownership and use of such creation. In cases where AI act as an instrument for human creators, matter in question of join-authorship can arise. If a human gives significant input to the AI output, deciding the range of the human’s contribution versus that of AI can make more complex ownership claims, possibly leading to controversies over rights. (A. N. Kirsanov, 2019)

The ‘fair-use’ doctrine permits restrictive use of copyrighted substance in absentia of consent for motives such as criticism, comment, new reporting, teaching or research. (Inaltong, 2020) Yet, putting ‘fair-use’ to AI generated contents, majorly when it involves data dragging from copyrighted sources for training purpose, remains a controversial issue.

The U.S Copyright office has notified instruction stating that works created absolutely by AI in absentia of human author in the copyright framework and raises significant queries about the rights of users and developers of AI tech.

RELEVANT CASE LAWS

ANDERSEN V. STABILITYAI

One of the primary law challenges against the Generative AI developers rose in the case of ANDERSEN V. STABILITY AI, it was filed in January 2023. This lawsuit was initiated by a group of visual artists who accused four companies- 1) Stability AI, Midjourney, DreamStudio and DreamUp of the copyright violations of the right of publicity. The plaintiffs alleged that their artworks were unlawfully inclusive in the training databases for these AI image-generating platforms without their consent. The case moved forth gradually, with the court sanctioning motions to dismiss various claims but allowing the direct violation claims to proceed. The plaintiffs have also filed amended complaints to refine their arguments.

In 2024, a notable development took place when the plaintiffs voluntarily or by self, dismissed their claims related to the removal of copyright management information under Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The decision followed a ruling in Doe v. GitHub, where a court determined that claims under DMCA Section 1202(b) require “identicality” between the authentic works and the copies from which the CMI was removed. Despite this dismissal, the plaintiffs indicated their intention to seek reconsideration of the DMCA claims if the 9th Circuit does not uphold the identicality requirement.

Another important part in the Andersen case occurred in the August when Judge William Orrick partially granted and partially denied motions to dismiss the first amended complaint. The ruling notably rejected the defendants’ argument that the AI companies were only copying unprotectable “data” in the form of statistical representations, which they claimed would be non-infringing. He ordered and emphasized that AI technology fundamentally differs from the past technologies, suggesting by AI generated content. This highlights he evolving nature of copyright law in relation to new technological developments and sets a precedent for future legal interpretations concerning AI- generating works.

NEW YORK TIMES V. MICROSOFT AND OPEN AI

In late 2023, the New York Times, filed a lawsuit against Microsoft and Open AI in the southern district of New York marking it as a first case against the generative AI company by a news publisher. The lawsuit alleged direct, vicarious and contributory copyright violations, as well as, the removal of copyright management data under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, claiming that NYT’s works were unlawfully copied and used to train the ChatGPT, In the year 2024, this case was codified with two more lawsuits filed by other news organization, Daily news et el. V. Microsoft Corporations. Et al. and The Center for Investigative Reporting v. Open AI. A major development or change took place in November when the court denied Open AI’s motion to compel evidence related to the NYT’S business practices and the use of generative AIs by its employees. The court ruled that such material was irrelevant to “fair-use” analyses and clarified that AI companies’ reliance on the GOOGLE V. ORACLE case did not support the argument that the fourth fair use component requires the consideration of the copyright user’s other’s users or licensing of their works to third parties. These ruling underscores the legal complexities surrounding copyright violation claims in the context of AI- generated content and sheds light on the court’ focus on the relevance of evidence in fair use determination.

CHIBON V. OPENAI, NC.,

In 2024, major violation cases against GAI companies, specifically, Open AI, emerged, mainly from authors of literary works. The Tremblay v. Open AI case, amalgamated with Silverman v. Open AI and Chibon v. Open AI involved authors claiming that Open AI illegally copied their books from unlawful online “shadow libraries” to train Chat GPT. The progress in the case was gradual due to discovery disputes, but the authors thinned their claims to a single count of direct copyright violation in a modified complain. Open AI responded in denial of the allegations and alternatively asserting a fair use defense.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN INDIA

Rapid technology developments are shaping both areas, hence the legal framework around copyright and artificial intelligence (AI) in India is changing. The present legal scene is sketched below:

Indian Copyright Law
The Copyright Act, 1957 (as modified) mostly controls copyright in India, hence safeguarding producers of original literary, theatrical, musical, and creative works as well as cinematographic films and sound recordings. The Act seeks to safeguard artists' rights and encourage invention by balancing public access to knowledge and culture.

Among the main elements of the Copyright Act are:

The work has to be original, not duplicated.

Copyright Duration: Usually, the copyright term for literary, dramatic, and musical works runs for the life of the author plus sixty years; for cinematograph films and sound recordings, sixty years after publication; and for photos, sixty years.

The author or copyright owner has exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, modify, and publicly perform the work.

Under the fair use clauses, some uses of copyrighted works—such as for research, education, criticism, or news reporting—may be protected from infringement allegations.

Copyright and artificial intelligence issues
AI raises questions about how the present copyright legislation relates to works produced by robots or artificial intelligence systems. The main question is who owns the copyright for works produced by artificial intelligence and whether Indian copyright law qualifies AI as an author.

Main Issues:
Authorship of Works Produced by Artificial Intelligence Though artificial intelligence cannot be legally acknowledged as a person, the Copyright Act mandates an author to be human. So, works produced by artificial intelligence could not qualify for copyright protection by default.

AI and Derivative Works: AI systems may create new material from current copyrighted works—for example, music, art, or language. This brings up questions regarding how AI would use copyrighted content without appropriate permission.

Culpability for Infringement: Determining culpability is challenging when AI violates copyrighted works as the AI itself cannot be sued. Legal action could have to be aimed at the users, operators, or creators of artificial intelligence systems.

3. Judicial Approach and New Trends
Though there are several significant judgments and rulings that show the changing judicial attitude toward copyright in the framework of technology, Indian courts have not yet offered thorough direction on AI-generated works.

Case Law on Software and AI: The courts in India have ruled on software program copyright issues, which could be relevant for AI-generated material. The Delhi High Court in the Microsoft Corporation v. Rupesh waidande (India) case, for instance, addressed software piracy and infringement concerns.

International Comparisons: Courts in several nations, like the UK and the US, have begun to struggle with the question of authorship and copyright as it relates to works produced by artificial intelligence. India's legal system could change in tandem with these outside examples.

4. Suggestions and Government Programs
The government of India has acknowledged the need of artificial intelligence and its capacity to change several fields, including those connected to copyright. Among the pertinent projects are:

Though it doesn't explicitly cover the copyright concerns particular to AI-generated material, India's national plan on artificial intelligence, published in 2018, emphasizes the growth and control of AI in several industries.

India is evaluating and changing its copyright rules. Particularly the necessity to specify the rights of authors and consumers of artificial intelligence-generated works, these changes might perhaps handle developing concerns connected to AI and copyright.

Possible Changes and Future Directions
India should think about the following changes to handle the junction of copyright and artificial intelligence:
Provisions on AI-Specific Copyright: The addition of clauses defining the part of human creators—e.g., the developer or operator of the AI system—in the copyright framework and clarifying the ownership of AI-generated works.
Using systems where artists and AI developers may jointly share rights or licenses for works produced by AI.
India can consider changes in international copyright law, including WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) talks on AI and copyright, to match its policies with world norms.

RAGHAV CASE

Raghav similar to Dabus, the Indian Copyright office has mistakenly recognized the AI system RAGHAV as a co-author of an artistic work and registered the application for copyright protection. In the first instance, however the copyright office rejected the application submitted by Ankit Sahani, the AI systems’ creator, who listed the AI system as the work’s sole author. The copyright office thereafter sent pout a letter to remove the registration since it had awarded it in error and requested that Mr. Sahani, the human co-author-consider the legal standing of the AI system RAGHAV. Although, the court has not yet made a decision, the application status is still listed as “registered” on the copyright office’s website. Given that the sophistication and capabilities of AI system continue to evolve with the passage of time, the court’s decision will serve as the precedent for similar cases in the future making it highly important for the problems surrounding AI System in IP laws pertaining to copyright protection in India.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF INDIA AND USA

A comparison study of the legal framework on copyright and artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States and India uncovers notable variations and parallels in how these two nations control copyright in the context of artificial intelligence. Each nation has its distinct legal traditions, but both are contending with developing concerns relating to AI and intellectual property rights.

Legal System in the United States
The Copyright Act of 1976, which has been changed several times, including major revisions like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998, is the main legislation controlling copyright in the United States.

Main Points:
Authorship: Works under the Copyright Act have to be produced by a "human author." Under present US law, artificial intelligence cannot be regarded as an author. Thus, unless a human author participates in the production process, works produced by artificial intelligence are not automatically entitled for copyright protection.

US law has a strong "fair use" clause that enables some uses of copyrighted works for reasons including criticism, commentary, research, education, and news reporting. Especially in situations where AI trains or transforms current works, AI's involvement in generating material can trigger this clause. (Jamshid Kazimi, 2024).

AI and Copyright Ownership: One significant problem in the United States has been the ownership of works produced by artificial intelligence. Should an artificial intelligence create a work totally without human involvement, it is unknown who owns the copyright. In certain cases, the organization that owns or programmed the artificial intelligence might assert the rights; nonetheless, the law still lacks unambiguous direction.

Safe Harbor Provisions: Online platforms under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) are given a "safe harbour" insulating them from responsibility for infringing material posted by users. For AI-driven systems that compile or create material depending on user input, this is very crucial.

Strengths of the US Framework:
The fair use theory offers AI developers and users flexibility to include pre-existing works in their processes, hence allowing them to avoid infringement.
Safe Harbor Protections: Platforms such as social media, content-sharing platforms, and AI-based services benefit from the DMCA's safe harbour rules, allowing them to operate without fear of ongoing lawsuit.
US courts have more case law and legal precedents addressing copyright concerns, especially those connected to artificial intelligence, which offers some degree of predictability.
Shortcomings of the US System:
Uncertainty About Works Produced by Artificial Intelligence Especially when there is no human participation in the creation, the legal status of AI-generated works stays ambiguous. This creates ambiguity about who owns these works.
Over-reliance on Fair Use: The fair use doctrine is subjective, and although it offers flexibility, its use can cause legal ambiguity, particularly as AI systems become increasingly involved in content generation and transformation.

Even with DMCA safeguards, platforms might find themselves in content disputes since defining the line between legal usage and infringement in AI-generated material can be difficult.

Copyright law in India is mostly controlled by the Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended), (M. Bala, 2020)while the National Policy on IPR 2016 providing direction for management of intellectual property rights. But present Indian copyright law does not specifically include artificial intelligence.

Main Features:
Authorship: Like the United States, Indian law stipulates human authorship for a work to qualify for copyright protection. Thus, works produced by artificial intelligence are not considered copyrightable unless a person is engaged in some way.

The Indian Copyright Act has a "fair dealing" clause, which is more limiting than the fair use concept in America. Fair dealing is more limited in scope as it only applies to specific stated objectives such research, private study, criticism, and review.

AI and Copyright Ownership: India, like the United States, lacks clear direction on who owns the copyright for works produced by artificial intelligence. Should AI produce a work completely independently, there is no clear system for copyright allocation or ownership.

India has developed a National Strategy for AI (2018)(Chatterjee, 2020), although this plan does not yet explicitly handle the legal consequences of artificial intelligence in intellectual property.

Advantages of the Indian Framework:
India's Copyright Act protects a broad spectrum of creative works, including computer programs, thereby supporting AI-related inventions indirectly.
India is aggressively examining its IP rules, including talks and projects on changing its legal structure to meet the difficulties of emerging technology like artificial intelligence.
India's approach to increase AI development is encouraging as it lays the groundwork for future regulatory systems able to handle fresh concerns including artificial intelligence in copyright.
Flaws in the Indian System:
Absence of AI-Specific Provisions: The lack of particular clauses addressing AI-generated works leaves authors and developers legally unsure.
India's fair dealing rule is more limited than the US's fair use concept, which might restrict the freedom AI developers require in using current copyrighted works.

Enforcement Issues: Especially in the case of digital piracy and the fast evolution of artificial intelligence technology, enforcement of copyright protection in India can be sluggish and erratic. (A. Ghose, 2020)

(Amir, 2021)

ASPECT

INDIA

USA

COPYRIGHT LAW AND BASIS

Evolving framework with focus on traditional works and an emphasis on digital content or work.

Established framework with robust case laws and clear protection for traditional works.

AI AND COPYRIGHT

No clear guidance on AI generated works, similar challenges around authorships.

Unclear ownership of AI generated works, with some development on the role of human authorship.

FAIR USE/ FAIR DEALING

Restrictive fair dealing provisions, limiting flexibility for AI related works

Broad fair use provisions offering flexibility for AI developers

SAFE HARBOUR

No equivalent in India law; online [platforms face more direct liability for user’s content.

Safe harbors under DMCA, shielding them from liability from users uploaded content.

LEGAL PRECEDENTS

Limited case laws on AI: Legal framework underdeveloped in this regard

Extensive case laws, including emerging cases around AI and Copyright; Legal framework still developing in this regard

GOVERNMANET INITIATIVES

National strategy of AI but no clear AI related copyright reforms yet.

Pro-active regulations with emerging discourse on AI related Intellectual property.

SOURCE: ARTICLE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLGENCE LAWS

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF AI RELATED COPYRIGHT LAWS IN INDIA

Critical Study of Indian Copyright Laws Related to Artificial Intelligence
India's copyright laws have not yet completely handled the issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI) and the complexity of AI-generated works. Given that artificial intelligence is developing quickly, India's legal system must adjust to fit these new technology developments. At present, India's copyright system mostly follows the Copyright Act of 1957, which emphasizes human-created works. Several important questions that have to be answered in relation to artificial intelligence include Below is a critical examination of India's present legal stance on AI-related copyright laws, highlighting the deficiencies, strengths, and possible changes. (Ekhator, 2023)

1. Human Authorship Need
Present Status: Original works of authorship are given copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957. These works have to be produced by a human writer; so, AI-generated works—works produced without direct human involvement—do not qualify for copyright protection.(Bridy, 2016)

When artificial intelligence generates things like art, music, literature, or software, this causes an authorship gap. As artificial intelligence is not considered a legal person under Indian law, the law today does not recognize it as a "author." (Ginsburg, 2003)

Important Questions:
Ownership Ambiguity: Should artificial intelligence create a work, no obvious individual or organisation has the copyright. Usually, the AI's creator or user is assumed to own the rights, although the law does not clearly state this.

Legal ambiguity: For AI engineers, artists, and businesses depending on AI to produce creative creations, this causes great uncertainty. Ownership of AI-generated material might become a legal issue especially in cases without clear human creator participation.

Possible Reform: The legislation may be changed to specifically cover works produced by artificial intelligence, hence defining clear rules on how copyright relates to AI-generated material. Possible changes may be to provide copyright to the programmer, AI's operator, or to implement a hybrid approach treating AI-generated works differently from human-made ones. (Mutaman Amir, 2021)

2. Fair Dealing vs. Fair Use
Present Situation: The Indian Copyright Act follows the fair dealing principle, which is more limited than the fair usage principle used in nations such the United States. Fair dealing is restricted to particular applications like research, private study, criticism, and review. This limits the freedom for artificial intelligence creators to utilize copyrighted information for training AI systems without violating rights.

By contrast, fair use in the United States permits more extensive usage for news reporting, satire, and criticism. This helps artificial intelligence, which sometimes needs massive training data. (Zhang, 2024)

Important Problems: Low Flexibility: For AI creators, the limiting character of fair dealing in India might be a substantial barrier. To enhance their learning and produce new works, AI systems frequently depend on vast databases including copyrighted content. India's fair dealing rules might restrict this freedom, hence impeding creativity in artificial intelligence.

Uneven Application: Even where fair dealing could apply, its subjective character causes uneven enforcement and interpretation, which might create legal ambiguity for AI-driven enterprises.

India can think about increasing its fair dealing clause to let more usage of copyrighted material for AI research and innovation in order to fit AI. This may involve allowing for AI training or establishing a new exception for AI-specific needs. It could be good to draw motivation from the fair usage concept of the United States.

Absence of Specific Provisions for Works Created by Artificial Intelligence
Present Situation: The problem of AI-generated works is not covered by India's Copyright Act. The legislation assumes human authorship and offers no legal acknowledgment of the rights of works produced independently by artificial intelligence.

Works produced by artificial intelligence are therefore outside of copyright protection. In reality, the owner of the artificial intelligence usually assumes ownership, although the law makes no clear distribution of these rights.

CONCLUSION

The United States and India both have comparable difficulties implementing conventional copyright law on works produced by artificial intelligence. Although India's legal system is currently changing to handle the influence of artificial intelligence on copyright, the US has a more sophisticated structure with defined fair use policies and safe harbour safeguards.

Though it lacks particular policies for AI-generated works, the US has more defined direction on certain areas. Though its subjective implementation could cause unpredictability, the fair use concept provides considerable flexibility. (S. Ali, 2024)

India, on the other hand, is in a position where the legal structure calls for more particular changes, particularly with regard to AI-generated material. Although India's present legal situation is more limiting in terms of fair use and does not yet completely handle the subtleties added by artificial intelligence, it offers great possibility for future changes (Prachi Mishra1, 2023).

Both nations will have to improve their copyright laws as artificial intelligence develops to promote innovation while safeguarding intellectual property rights in a manner that fits AI's particular qualities.