AI Can Create Copyrighted Work, but Cannot Be Its Author: What India’s Copyright Ruling Means

Introduction

India’s Copyright Office has clarified an important issue in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): an AI system may generate an original artistic work, but it cannot itself be recognised as the legal author under the current Indian copyright framework.

The decision was delivered on 31 August 2026 by the Registrar of Copyrights in a case involving US computer scientist Stephen L. Thaler and his AI system, DABUS. The application sought copyright registration for an artwork titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, identifying DABUS as its author.

The Copyright Office found that the artwork met the statutory originality threshold but rejected the application in its existing form because the AI system could not be recognised as its legal author.

Background of the AI Copyright Case

Stephen Thaler developed an AI system called DABUS, short for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience. He applied for copyright registration of an artwork generated by the system and identified DABUS as the author while claiming ownership himself.

The Copyright Office questioned whether an AI system could qualify as an author under India's Copyright Act, 1957. Thaler was given an opportunity to amend the application and identify himself as the author, but he declined.

The Registrar ultimately rejected the application in its existing form, drawing a distinction between the originality of a work and the legal identity of its author.

Can AI-Generated Work Receive Copyright Protection?

The ruling does not establish that all AI-generated works are automatically protected by copyright. Instead, it indicates that AI-generated work may satisfy the originality requirement, provided the applicable legal conditions are met.

In the DABUS case, the Copyright Office found no evidence that the artwork had been copied from a specific existing work and considered it sufficiently original. However, the AI system could not be recognised as the author.

The decision therefore separates two important legal questions:

• Originality: Does the work satisfy the legal requirements for copyright protection?
• Authorship: Who is legally recognised as the person responsible for creating the work?

This distinction is important for designers, artists, advertising agencies, content creators and businesses using AI tools in their creative processes.

Impact on Intellectual Property Rights

The ruling highlights the growing relationship between AI technology and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). Businesses increasingly use AI to develop artwork, logos, marketing materials, illustrations, product designs and digital content.

Companies using AI tools should maintain records of their creative process, including human contributions, editing, selection and modifications. They should also check whether the material used or generated creates copyright risks involving third-party content.

The decision does not mean that every AI-assisted work automatically belongs to the person who operates the software. The circumstances, the degree of human involvement and the applicable legal provisions remain important.

Conclusion

India's DABUS copyright decision marks an important development in the discussion surrounding AI and Intellectual Property Rights. It recognises that a work generated using AI may meet the originality threshold while maintaining that the AI system itself cannot be recognised as its legal author under the current framework.

As AI becomes more common in creative industries, businesses and creators should pay close attention to copyright ownership, human creative contributions and trademark protection.

For assistance with Copyright Registration, Trademark Registration, Trademark Objection and Intellectual Property Rights, consulting an experienced IP professional can help businesses protect their creative assets and brand identity.