In the World of AI, Whose Right Is It Anyway?

AI doesn’t copy; it creates. But when a bot conjures art in a famous artist’s style or sings out in a famous singer’s voice, is it talent, theft, or just tech at play? The answer could rewrite the rules of originality.

‍

‍

A few months back, the digital world was taken into storm by Open AI's new image generation trend inspired by Studio Ghibli's Art. One could upload any picture and get GPT 4.0 to convert them into Ghibli inspired images. People went into a frenzy turning pictures of iconic movie scenes, characters and even their personal photographs into Ghibli images.

The Ghibli style, or the imitation of it, is available as a generative filter, and people's social media display pictures are flooded with wide-eyed, anime-style pictures. Many opined that this was against the very ideology of Hayao Miyazaki, the famous animator and co-founder of the Japanese animation house Studio Ghibli, where animated characters are immersed in meticulously hand-drawn scenery.

Image generation inspired by art originally created by humans is just one of the myriad examples of the tremendous capabilities Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI).

‍

‍

The term Artificial intelligence (AI) was first coined by American Computer scientist John McCarthy. It entails the capability of machines to think and respond to commands like a human.

It is the study of making machines mimic human intelligence and behaviour in solving problems and performing complex tasks, such as content creation, visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making and translation between languages. AI encompasses technologies from machine learning and natural language processing to robotics as well as machine vision.

Undoubtedly, AI has been making tremendous strides in recent years. The preciseness of the content generated by AI can be so high that sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between content created by humans and content created by AI models.

Thus, it is also raising questions about copyright laws and how they apply to AI generated work. For example, does the AI generated voice imitating the voice of a famous singer infringe copyright?

Let's explore the principles of originality under Indian copyright law 1957 (Act), as well as some of the exceptions for the use of copyrighted works. How Indian copyright law applies to AI-generated works, who owns the rights to such works, and what penalties exist for infringement.

‍

‍

Copyright is a form of intellectual property that protects the original work of a creator. It is the creator's legal right to reproduce, perform, or sell the work that one creates for profit. Copyright lasts for the life of the creator plus 60 years after his or her death in India.

In India, copyright is created as soon as a work is generated. Registration of copyright is optional, not mandatory. Copyright excludes others from using the work in any manner for a definite period of years.

The first ownership of the copyright remains with the author or the creator of the work. In the absence of any agreement, the creator is the first owner of the copyright.

However, if a photograph is taken, a painting or portrait is drawn, or an art engraving is made at the request of any other person in exchange of a fee, then that person shall become the first owner of the copyright.

‍

The curious case of monkey selfie!

David Slater, a professional photographer, travelled to Indonesia in 2008 and voluntarily left his camera on a tripod to capture the best shots of monkeys. One of the monkeys operated the camera and took the photos and 'monkey selfies.' Slater later published the selfies taken by the monkeys in a magazine.

In 2011, the images were uploaded in the Wikipedia by someone. Slater lodged a complaint with Wikipedia about his copyright infringement and demanded the removal of photos from the website. Wikipedia did not relent to Slater's demands, and legal disputes ensued between Slater and Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, Prevention for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued Slater in a court on behalf of the monkey, claiming the copyright vests with the monkey. The court ruled that that animals do not have statutory right under the Copyright Act, and subsequently the matter was resolved by way of a settlement between the parties.

‍

‍

Copyright does not protect an idea or information; it only protects its expression, for example, a piece of writing, music, or a film.

‍

The rights of the creator include:

• The right to reproduce or communicate their original work in any medium;

• The right to adapt it for use by others;

• If anyone publishes or distributes a work without permission from the owner, then they are infringing the rights of the owner.

‍

‍

However, there are some exceptions:

Educational purposes - Copying and distribution of copyrighted work is allowed for educational purpose. Thus, photocopying pages from a book and distributing it among students do not infringe copyright.

Research purposes - Published material can be used and referred to for research work and does not violate provisions of copyright law. However, one must be careful to cite the original sources to avoid plagiarism (intentionally or unintentionally copying someone else’s work without proper credit).

Sometimes, reverse plagiarism is also seen, which involves making up or fabricating sources to support a claim. It's a severe form of academic dishonesty where a writer creates fake references, misleading their audience into believing in false data that is validated by non-existent sources.‍

Review and news reporting - If you're writing a review of a book or a movie that's been published by someone else, then you can use quotes from those works as long as you give credit to the original creator.

Public interest - This allows anyone who has an interest in creating artworks or films based on existing ones without violating copyrights.

‍

‍

Recent developments in the United States show how exceptions are being tested. In September 2025, Anthropic, the AI company behind Claude, agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a class action brought by authors.

The court drew a clear distinction: training on legally purchased books could qualify as fair use, but using millions of pirated works constituted infringement. As part of the settlement, Anthropic must delete the pirated dataset, and affected authors are set to receive about $3,000 per book.

Importantly, the deal does not grant Anthropic any licence for future training on copyrighted works, which means companies will now have to negotiate explicit permissions before using creative material.

But originality is hard to define

• It is difficult to decide what counts as originality.

• There is no single rule that explains how to test originality.‍

• There are no fixed guidelines that clearly show how to separate original work from something based only on skill, labour, or copying.

‍

For example, if someone copies your song but only changes a few words in the lyrics, that is not original, so it can still count as copyright infringement. But if someone creates their own version of your song by putting in their own ideas, effort, and skill, then it may be considered original.

Indian courts have also grappled with the meaning of originality. In the landmark case Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008), the Supreme Court held that originality requires skill, judgment, and a minimal degree of creativity.

This test is particularly relevant for AI outputs, which may lack the human element necessary for copyright protection. It helps explain why content produced entirely by AI may not qualify as an ‘original work’ under Indian law.

The law does not say the work has to be completely new or at a genius-level. It just needs to show that the creator put in skill, judgement, and effort rather than just doing a mindless copy.

Because of this, content made entirely by AI cannot be called “original” in the legal sense, as it is not created by a human mind. If it were treated as original, it could easily clash with someone else’s copyright.

This is why individuals or companies who are creating content using AI must carefully check how their work is protected under copyright laws in India and abroad before publishing or selling it.

‍

‍

Is AI-driven content infringement of copyright?

AI bots are not original, autonomous, or creative. They do not have a mind of their own, nor do they have a soul or heart. AI bots follow instructions from humans. They are programmed to perform tasks like answering questions or making decisions based on the input received from the human user.  

The question of ownership is not just global but local too. In India, start-ups and creative agencies are already using AI to design clothes, generate ad jingles, and script campaigns.

But who owns the rights: the client, the designer using AI, or the AI company itself? This uncertainty mirrors the ambiguity seen in cases like the Anthropic settlement, where questions of ownership, licensing, and unauthorised use came into sharp focus.

‍

‍

Who owns the rights to works generated by Artificial Intelligence

The content created by AI models like ChatGPT comes from large databases of literary and other works, and is derived from the works of many authors. If the generated content is only based on the ideas of existing works and not directly copied, then it is not considered copyright infringement.

However, ownership of such content is still unclear. It is uncertain whether the rights belong to the AI company (such as OpenAI), the user who provides the input, or both. Generally speaking, users are likely to retain ownership of any material they submit.

‍

‍

Conclusion

The rise of AI-generated content has made it necessary to consider how this technology affects original creators. The debate over whether Ghibli-style AI images violate original copyright, rests at the crossroads of copyright laws with grey areas and rapidly evolving technology.

One might argue that the AI-generated content that mimics the original, dilutes its brand and creative identity. However, courts would distinguish between copying specifically, and merely imitating the artistic style.

To go back to the Ghibli example, OpenAI is not specifically copying the characters or scenes from Studio Ghibli’s creation in its Ghibli-inspired images, it is imitating the style and creating something completely different.

However, until clearer legal standards emerge, the new technological advancements do bring to light a broader concern: of protecting artistic integrity and at the same time accommodating technological innovation.

For now, it is safe to say that time will tell. Till then, we must exercise as much caution as possible when using AI-generated content as our own. Until clearer rules emerge, creators, companies, and users should act with discretion in relying on AI-generated works.

‍

‍

Bibliography

Eastern Book Company & Ors vs D.B. Modak & Anr, Appeal (civil) 6472 of 2004 (The Supreme Court of India 12 12, 2007).

Gartner. (2023). Gartner. Retrieved January 25, 2023, from https://www.gartner.com/: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-12-08-why-is-chatgpt-making-waves-in-the-ai-market

IBM. (n.d.). What is artificial intelligence (AI)? Retrieved January 26, 2023, from https://www.ibm.com/: https://www.ibm.com/in-en/topics/artificial-intelligence

McCarthy, J. (1996). Defending AI Research. California: CSLI Publication.

Naruto vs David John Slater, no.16-15469 (United States Court of Appeals July 12, 2017).

Wills, Y. (2019). Artificial Intelligence - Modern magic or Dangerous Future. London: Icon.