Loading…
The Copyright Office of India rejected an application naming the AI system DABUS as the author of an artwork, in an order passed on 31 August 2026.
The application, by US computer scientist Stephen L. Thaler, sought registration of the work 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise'.
The Registrar of Copyrights, Unnat P. Pandit, held that DABUS is neither a natural nor a juristic person and so cannot be an author.
The Office nevertheless found that the work itself crossed the threshold of originality under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The order separates originality from authorship: an AI-generated work may be original, but its author must be the person who caused it to be created.
Originality asks whether a work is protectable at all. Authorship asks who holds the resulting rights. The Office answered the first question yes and the second by pointing away from the machine to the person behind it.
Simple Analogy: A photograph can be original without the camera owning it.
Sets out the works in which copyright subsists and the originality requirement; the Office found the artwork met this threshold.
Defines the author of a computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work as the person who causes the work to be created - read as requiring a legally recognised person.
| Argument for AI authorship | Argument against |
|---|---|
| Advanced systems can generate outputs with limited direct human control over the final expression | AI is neither a natural nor a recognised juristic person capable of holding rights and duties |
| Recognition would reflect how increasingly autonomous generative systems actually work | Copyright has traditionally tied authorship to human skill, judgement and creative responsibility |
| Protection could encourage investment in creative AI technologies | AI cannot own, assign, license or enforce copyright through contracts or courts |
| It would distinguish genuinely AI-generated works from human-created or AI-assisted ones | Like a camera or editing software, AI may be a tool that facilitates creation without becoming the author |
| Parliament could build a separate framework for autonomous AI-generated works | Treating AI as author leaves infringement, liability and responsibility for unlawful outputs unresolved |
GS Paper III > Science and Technology > Awareness in IT and intellectual property rights; GS Paper IV > Ethics > Accountability and human agency in AI
General Awareness > Current Affairs > Science and Technology
With the present state of development, Artificial Intelligence can effectively do which of the following? 1. Bring down electricity consumption in industrial units 2. Create meaningful short stories and songs 3. Disease diagnosis 4. Text-to-Speech Conversion 5. Wireless transmission of electrical energy Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Answer: 1, 3 and 4 only
Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, the AI system created by Stephen L. Thaler and named as author in the rejected application.
The provision of the Copyright Act, 1957 that makes the author of a computer-generated work the person who causes the work to be created.
A non-human entity such as a company or trust that the law recognises as capable of holding rights and duties; the Office held AI is not one.
The minimum degree of independent creation a work must show under Section 13 for copyright to subsist in it.