Can something created by artificial intelligence be copyrighted? India's Copyright Office answered this on Monday, rejecting application filed by American computer scientist Stephen Thaler seeking registration for artwork generated by his AI system, DABUS. Order is among first decisions to address who, if anyone, is its author when AI generates work.
Case pertained to artwork titled 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise'. In 2022, Thaler applied to register copyright. According to him, artwork had been generated autonomously by DABUS, or Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, AI system he developed.
Application identified DABUS as author and Thaler as owner. Copyright Office objected: asked whether AI system could legally be recognised as author under Copyright Act, 1957. Also asked who should be treated as author if work was indeed generated using AI. During proceedings, Office allowed Thaler to amend application and identify himself as author. He declined and continued to insist that DABUS be recognised instead.
Copyright Act answers three separate questions: whether work is original, who its author is, and who owns copyright. First question comes from Section 13, which protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. Since Act does not define originality, Copyright Office interprets it from Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, where Supreme Court held that work does not have to be novel or groundbreaking to receive copyright protection. It must show at least minimum degree of creativity and cannot merely be copied or mechanically reproduced.
On authorship, Section 2(d)(vi) identifies author of computer-generated works as "the person who causes the work to be created". Dispute was over phrase's meaning. Thaler argued DABUS, having generated artwork, should be recognised as author. Office had to decide whether provision refers to machine producing output or person creating and operating that system. Section 17 states author is generally first owner of copyright, whereas Sections 18 and 19 allow copyright to be assigned or transferred through legally recognised agreements.
Office noted these provisions are built around legal persons who can hold rights, transfer them and enforce them. That was important in deciding whether AI system could be treated as author.
Office found image generated by AI was original enough to qualify for protection. On authorship, Office said that authorship as legal status that carries rights and responsibilities. AI system, however sophisticated, does not presently possess such legal recognition under Indian law.
To interpret who causes computer-generated work to be created, Office looked into American copyright cases that distinguished between tool and person handling it. Office said that although DABUS generated final image, it did so within system designed and set in motion by Thaler. DABUS was treated as tool through which work was generated, while Thaler was person who legally caused it to be created.
It said, when an Act refers to a person, it often refers to natural person or juristic person, like company, that has capability of owning property, entering into contracts, etc., and since DABUS is not recognised juristic person, Stephen L. Thaler was "the legally recognised person that caused particular work to be created and is therefore person capable of being identified as its statutory author." So, application did not meet criteria under Act.
Office also rejected fallback request to record DABUS as technological generator, saying that register couldn't be used to indirectly confer legal status on AI system and that no proper application seeking such entry had been made.
Order leaves open possibility of future application that identifies author under Copyright Act. It also states any broader change in law about whether personhood or authorship should ever be extended to autonomous AI remains policy decision strictly reserved for Parliament, and cannot be introduced via administrative reinterpretation.