A. THE INTRESECTION A(I)P
In today’s world where technology has taken over its dominance in each and every sector of the modern society. The depth of knowledge to understand its relevance and its impact in our day-to-day life actions becomes very significant. The use of technology is crucial and very useful to stay updated with the recent global trends of the world. While there are certain things that technology has no stake over and is purely human driven but the extent to it is quite limited. Living in such an era depicts the blurring difference between the human creation and the one done by Artificial intelligence. The role of Artificial intelligence becomes very significant since the future of it is tend to replace the human tasks and are more well equipped with complex decisions involvement.
In contemporary times, the market and the industrial workplace shows the importance of having ownership of Intellectual Property (IP). To claim the ownership in any segment be it business or in any individual capacity the IP ownership becomes significant. This significance of ownership can be availed to extend entities that are not generated by humans such as those developed by Artificial Intelligence and software algorithms can they be used to create statutory protection by Intellectual Property stand out to be a major question. This article tries to unlock the knowledge of the intersection between the artificial intelligence and its legality over the Intellectual property ownership. It also stands out to show its contemporary position nationally and internationally to have a better segmented idea on it.
B. ARTIFICIAL INTELIGENCE AND IT’S IMPACT ON IP
The literal meaning to artificial intelligence would be the information that is artificially generated, something that is not generated by human is deemed to be one so. The artificial intelligence was formed by John McCarthy back in 1927, he was an American computer scientist. Now, this formed Artificial intelligence has its uses in transportation, industry, entertainment and overcoming various human generated skills by the machines.
The development of Artificial intelligence has proved to be useful and has opened new opportunities for each and every sector. With times the uses of AI have also spread to the legal aspect and specifically the area of intellectual property. As AI has its own capability to generate information these are usually generated though intelligence process such as reasoning, machines etc. These generated content posses a challenge to the IP sector landing a question of ownership and authorship of the works that are generated by AI. Since now it is generated by AI the question to owning it and directing the system of it, the content created by it, its software its who is the authorized person to claim it becomes of major relevance. Usually, the ownership relies to the person creating it and is the owner of it but in regard to AI the ownership is different.
The creation by AI also raises certain copyright issues, as it can be easily reproduce copyrighted materials such as images, text, videos and music etc. AI generated content usually raises concerns and questions of copyrighted works. The jurisdiction of various countries have made their laws accordingly to have certain proclamations of their own. In India too, the legislation has created laws for it accordingly for which the given submissions are stated below. The AI generated content also depicts concerns of data privacy and security issues for safeguarding the intellectual rights. Therefore, the impact of AI on IP has been immense with time.
C. LEGAL STANDPOINTS OF INDIA
The Intellectual property laws in India do not have explicit provisions that recognize granting the ownership to various software and algorithms that is created by AI but there are still some provisions that are present in the Indian legislation that recognizes few of it. One of them is the Copyright Act of 1957, it usually recognizes the work generated by the computer and the one who generated it to be the owner of the created work. However, according to a particular section of Section 2(d)(vi) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957[1] the software or the AI system that is the counterpart, it cannot be regarded with an ownership tag by any of the individual. In case of Navigators Logistics Ltd vs Kashif Qureshi & Ors (2018) [2]the delhi high court rulings stated that the computer-generated list cannot be by protected by the copyright as the human creativeness is absent there.
Different act that includes the Patent Act, 1970, and the Design Act, 2000 it does not acknowledge any of the provisions that recognize a programmer or developer to be the creator or the owner of the innovation that is usually the result generated by AI or the algorithms. When human involvement is absent and the innovation is the exclusive product of the software’s efforts, the issue is made worse. A growing number of people are realizing that, in order to preserve a vibrant and dynamic innovator ecosystem, formal intellectual property rights should be granted to these developers—even if they do not own the software itself—through clear legal provisions, given the current wave of innovation and technical advancement. The section 2(1)(p)[3] and 2(1)(t) [4]of the Patents Acts clearly state that the word “person” is essential to be a patentee.
Similarly in one of the landmark case of M/S Kibow the Delhi High court stated that AI systems cannot be officially registered as the proprietor of a trademark. The court also emphasizes that the eligibility crreitia to come under the Trade marks act 1999 is by a human being only and since it is generated by AI or a software the eligibility discards here itself and cannot be a proprietor of a trademark.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act passed in 2023 also forbids the creation of any media, information, or content that is not accessible to the general public. It is evident from this and the language of the Copyright Act that no one may utilize any intellectual property without giving due credit to the original creator. Whether this also applies to the content generated by AI is still a question to answer by the judiciary. In India, the IP patent laws are questioned at high levels. The lack of clarity to the interpretation by the judiciary is crucial. The present interpretation is only limited to ideas and content by humans and AI however, a the technical aspect is not taken into consideration.
D. LEGAL FRAMEWORKS ACROSS GLOBAL
The legal arena for different countries in sector of AI and IP id growing gradually and more opportunities and increasing for the same. The key aspects to the global landscape would be as follows in countries like USA, EU and Japan.
I. USA
The legal framework for AI and intellectual property in the US places a strong emphasis on the necessity of human interaction for protection. Works that are solely AI-generated without human involvement are not eligible for copyright protection, according to U.S. Copyright Office regulations. Only works incorporating considerable human ingenuity are.
In a similar vein, applications for inventions made entirely by AI are rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which demands human inventorship for patents. The conflict between intellectual property rights and AI research is highlighted by legal issues, such as those involving the unauthorised use of copyrighted content to train AI models.
Furthermore, the ethical application of AI is being addressed by US policy more and more, with a focus on openness and respect for intellectual property rights in the creation of AI systems.
II. EU
The copyright system in the EU is intricate and made up of numerous directives and laws. Although AI-generated works are not specifically covered by EU law, AI outputs that do not involve a significant amount of human creativity may not be eligible for copyright. Only works created by humans are eligible for copyright protection, according to member states like Germany and France, though this view may change as further legislative and policy changes are made.
III. JAPAN
Japan takes a two-pronged approach to AI legislation, encouraging the use of AI while also managing risk. Its regulatory structure, which permits flexibility and innovation, consists of sector-specific legislation and nonbinding guidelines as opposed to general regulations. Japan’s copyright rules typically involve human intellectual production, which may bar the protection of works that are solely artificial intelligence (AI) generated. To stay up with AI developments, Japan’s agile governance model, however, encourages constant communication and upgrades.
E. CONCLUSION
Creative, innovative, and intellectual property domains have all seen profound transformations as a result of generative AI. Like in many other nations, India must quickly address and modify the current intellectual property rights (IPR) framework due to emerging complexities and issues, especially in the areas of copyrights and trademarks. Encouraging an atmosphere that supports AI-driven innovation is just as vital as protecting the rights of creators and innovators.
Changes to India’s copyright and trade mark laws should focus on clearly defining the terms authorship and ownership for AI-generated works, addressing the originality standards for these works, establishing precise protocols for handling AI-related copyright infringement, and offering advice on fair use in the context of AI under the Copyright Act of 1957. The Trade Marks Act of 1999 [5]should simultaneously define the function of AI in trademark registration and make clear the uniqueness and protectability of trademarks generated by AI.
India can take the lead in the global AI scene by striking a balance between innovation and protection. India can secure its future in the rapidly changing field of intellectual property by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic expansion while defending the rights and interests of its creators and innovators. An adaptable IPR system will be the cornerstone of India’s growth in this dynamic field of generative AI, as it continues to transform our environment.
Author : Dimpal Rathod, a Student at National Law Institute University, Bhopal, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at IIPRD
[1] Indian Copyright Act 1957, s 2(d)
[2] Navigators Logistics Ltd. V Kashif Qureshi &Ors.[2018] 254 DLT 307(Delhi HC)
[3] Indian Patent Act 1970, s 2 (1)
[4] Indian Patent Act 1970, s 2 (1)(t)
[5] The Trade Marks Act of 1999
