Artificial Intelligence: India Lacks Clear IP Laws Around AI Results

Regarding whether content produced by AI may be protected by copyright, current copyright rules state that the creator is the first person to own copyright to a work. The 1957 Copyright Act of India makes no mention of AI-generated works or acknowledges AI as an author. AI creations must be unique and innovative to be eligible for copyright protection, which is a major restriction. Because AI depends on data from pre-existing online sources and data supplied during training, content created by AI may not adhere to standards of originality or inventiveness. "Computer-generated work": In 1994, the Copyright Act of India was modified to encompass computer-generated works, encompassing artistic, theatrical, musical, and literary creations. The act's introduction of Section 2(d)(v) defined authorship of such works as "the person who causes the work to be created."

Recently, The New York Times Company filed lawsuits against Microsoft and OpenAI (the creators of the well-known AI model "ChatGPT") alleging that these companies' models relied on large-language models ("LLMs") that were produced by copying and using millions of copyrighted news articles, in-depth analyses, opinion pieces, reviews, how-to guides, and other Times content. The New York District Court is yet to provide a decision on whether or not an individual or organization may be identified as the creator of the information produced by ChatGPT in such circumstances.

Despite being relatively new to the market, generative AI is significantly impacted by current rules. Presently, judges are deciding how the existing legislation needs to be implemented. Users should be able to prompt these tools with direct references to other creators' copyrighted and trademarked works by name without obtaining permission. There are concerns regarding infringement and rights of use, ownership of AI-generated works, and unlicensed content in training data. A lawsuit has already been filed over these accusations. Three artists formed a class action lawsuit in Andersen v. Stability AI et al., a case that was filed in late 2022. The artists claimed that the generative AI platforms were using their original works without obtaining permission to train their AI in their styles, enabling users to create works that might not be sufficiently transformative from their existing, protected works, and thus would be considered unauthorized derivative works. Substantial infringement fines may be imposed if a court determines that the AI's works are unapproved and derivative. There have been previous instances where copyright law and technology have collided. Google successfully defended itself against a lawsuit by claiming that transformative usage permitted the use of book text scraping to construct its search engine; this ruling is nonetheless precedent-setting for the time being.

Liability and Infringement

It's difficult to determine who is liable for works created by AI. It entails comprehending the functions of AI systems, users, and developers. Copyright rules must be followed by both the producers and consumers of work created by AI. Finding the true copyright owner, however, becomes difficult if an AI system produces material without human input. Because AI is not considered to have a legal personality, problems might emerge when it infringes upon copyright. Although AI is not acknowledged as a legal entity, people are normally held accountable for infringement under the Copyright Act. It is necessary to create precise frameworks to assign accountability to the developers, owners, or operators of AI to address liability issues.

The practice of assigning copyright rights to the AI system's programmer is adopted by several nations, such as Ireland, New Zealand, and India. This method acknowledges the programmer's creative thought as the reason behind the AI's creation. India has adopted a more forgiving approach recently, granting the AI RAGHAV co-ownership of its creation, Suryast, with its inventor serving as the other co-author. Considering that, some argue that if an AI system independently generates a completely original work, it should be considered the author and hold sole copyright ownership. According to a different viewpoint, AI-generated works need to be open and publicly owned, much like Creative Commons. Although this strategy is advantageous to the general public, if tech corporations are unable to profit financially from the work generated, it can deter them from funding AI initiatives.

The Copyright Act of 1957 governs the topic of creative works in India. When it comes to AI-generated art, India is not inclusive. The person who causes the work to be created—a human or legal person—is defined as the "author" under Section 2(d) of the act. AI systems are not considered to be writers under this definition. This stance has been reaffirmed by Indian courts in several rulings, making it clear that AI systems cannot be regarded as authors of works protected by copyright.

Adopted from the United States, the legal idea of fair use permits restricted unrestricted use of copyrighted content under certain conditions. The goal, nature, volume, and effect of AI-generated work must all be taken into account when determining whether it constitutes fair use.

Although there isn't a single legislation in India that governs AI, the topic is covered by several other laws and regulations. A draft National Strategy on Artificial Intelligence was published by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology in 2020, providing a framework for policy development in the field. The Information Technology Act of 2000, the Right to Information Act of 2005, and the forthcoming Digital Person Data Protection Bill of 2022 are further rules. The handling of personal data is governed by the Digital Person Data Protection Bill, 2022, which mandates that AI systems be auditable, transparent, and explainable in addition to being biased-free. According to the Information Technology Act of 2000, intermediaries are not allowed to host, publish, or distribute any harmful or defamatory content. Although several legislation frameworks have been developed to prevent prejudice in AI, there are substantial barriers to their enforcement. First off, there is a regulatory vacuum that prevents AI developers from being held responsible for the biases in their products due to the lack of specific legislation addressing AI. Moreover, insufficient resources and expertise exist to effectively assess and track the biases of AI systems. Furthermore, it is difficult to recognize and address biases in AI systems due to the opaque nature of their decision-making process. Lastly, stakeholders like lawmakers, attorneys, and AI developers need to be made aware of the need to reduce AI prejudice.

Concerns regarding potential bias and discrimination in decision-making have been highlighted by the increasing use of AI in India. A lack of diversity in training data, developer prejudices, and historical data are some of the factors that might lead to AI bias. AI is covered by several Indian legislations. Unfortunately, a lack of specialized resources and stakeholder knowledge makes it difficult to enforce these rules. India may use IBP to address this by forming inclusive and diverse teams, maintaining transparency and accountability in AI decision-making procedures, and carrying out regular audits and assessments to find and remove prejudice. To build ethical and responsible AI and implement it in India with a legal framework, the Indian government must intervene and adopt thorough legislation and guidelines. There are serious issues with intellectual property raised by the rise of ChatGPT. Copyright rules may need to be amended to handle the particular difficulties that AI technology presents. Until more clear regulations are created, the legal ramifications of employing such instruments will probably continue to be complicated and unclear.

Views are personal.