UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Artificial Intelligence and Ownership Issues – A Comparative Analysis

Identification

Clé publique

openalex:w7217642588

Auteurs

Rushil Pathak

Année déclarée

2025

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:04:47.706075+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:04:47.706075+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

Amity University

Pays d’affiliation déclarés

IN

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

This research delves into the evolving intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Intellectual Property (IP) law, with a particular focus on the copyrightability of AI-generated works. As AI technologies increasingly demonstrate the capacity to autonomously create literary, artistic, and musical content, they challenge the foundational principles of copyright law, which traditionally hinge on human authorship and creativity. The study critically examines whether existing legal frameworks, especially in India, are equipped to address the complexities introduced by AI-generated content and whether such works can be granted copyright protection under current statutes. The paper begins by contextualizing AI as a transformative force in the 21st century, influencing sectors from healthcare to creative industries. It highlights the growing reliance on AI in generating original content and the subsequent legal ambiguity surrounding authorship and ownership. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, while recognizing computer-generated works, lacks clarity on the status of AI-generated content, particularly in the absence of human intervention. This legal gap raises fundamental questions about the definition of creativity, authorship, and the scope of protection under copyright law. Through comparative legal analysis, the study explores how jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union interpret and apply copyright principles to AI-generated works. Landmark cases and statutory provisions are examined to understand the global legal stance on authorship, originality, and ownership in the context of AI. The research also evaluates the relevance of international treaties like the Berne Convention and TRIPS Agreement, noting their silence on AI while identifying interpretive possibilities that could accommodate AI-generated works. Key research questions include whether AI-generated works meet the threshold of creativity required for copyright protection, who qualifies as the author or owner, and whether AI can be granted legal personhood or co-authorship status. The study also considers the implications of denying copyright protection to AI-generated works, including potential violations of competition law and disincentives for innovation and investment in AI technologies. Employing a doctrinal methodology, the research relies on secondary sources such as legal commentaries, international reports, and judicial decisions. It aims to propose viable legal reforms that align Indian copyright law with international standards, ensuring that AI-generated works receive appropriate recognition and protection. Ultimately, the study advocates for a nuanced and adaptive legal framework that reflects the realities of technological advancement. It emphasizes the need for legislative clarity, judicial interpretation, and international cooperation to resolve current ambiguities and ensure that the legal system evolves in tandem with AI’s growing role in creative processes. The research concludes by offering practical suggestions for harmonizing Indian copyright law with global best practices, thereby safeguarding both innovation and the integrity of intellectual property rights in the age of artificial intelligence.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W7217642588

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Juridictions étudiées — sources explicites

GB · IN · US

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

• Document · https://journal.ijris.com/index.php/ijris/article/view/155
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W7217642588

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.