Authorship

What is Authorship?

The term author is derived from the Latin word 'auctor', which comes from the verb augere which means to increase or strengthen what is already in existence. The modern meaning as given in Black's law dictionary defines an author as “one who produces, by his own intellectual labour applied to the materials of his composition, an arrangement or compilation new in itself". Authorship refers to the rights given to the author of a particular work. It gives credit to the creator of the work that is the author.

Official Definition of Authorship

Authorship signifies the intellectual creativity and effort of individuals (authors) in producing original works. An author is the creator or originator of a job, playing a crucial role in its development. They hold exclusive legal rights over their creation, often lasting throughout their lifetime and beyond. For example, the person who writes a book is recognized as its author and has the right to control its use and distribution. While authorship is mainly about creation, an author can also be the legal owner of the copyright, giving them the ability to protect, publish, and benefit from their work.

2.1. Authorship as defined in legislation

Authorship is a legal and intellectual device to identify and give credit to those who have made significant creative contributions to a scholarly or artistic work. Although Indian law does not give a precise definition of "authorship", the Copyright Act, 1957 defines an "author" under Section 2(d) which states that " "author" means,—

(i)in relation to a literary or dramatic work, the author of the work;

(ii)in relation to a musical work, the composer;

(iii)in relation to an artistic work other than a photograph, the artist;

(iv)in relation to a photograph, the person taking the photograph;

(v)in relation to a cinematograph film or sound recording, the producer; and

(vi)in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created;"

Apart from providing legal protection and economic rights to authors, the Copyright Act, 1957 also recognizes moral rights, which protect an author's personal and reputational interests in a creative work. Section 57(1) states that " Author's special right.-

Independently of the author's copyright and even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right

(a) to claim authorship of the work; and

(b) to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the said work if such distortion, mutilation, modification or other act would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation"

This section signifies that the author has the right to paternity which means that even though someone else owns the ownership rights, the author can still claim the authorship of his work. It also ensures the author the right to integrity of his work where the authors creations are protected from any distribution, mutiliation, modification and alteration.

1.Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd. and Anr

The extent and meaning of moral rights under Section 57 were reinforced in the Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd. & Anr case. The facts and judicial reasoning for the case are as follows :

Facts of the Case

Mannu Bhandari, a well-known Hindi writer, signed an agreement with Kala Vikas Pictrures Ltd., granting them rights to adapt her novel "Aap Ka Bunty" into a film. The contract permitted the defendants to approach her and make changes in the story so that the film could gain more commercial appeal. But once the film, "Samay Ki Dhara" was complete, Mannu Bhandari also instituted a suit to seek a permanent injunction against the exhibition of the film. She argued that the deviation of the filmmakers had fundamentally changed the meaning of her work, both her reputation as a writer and the integrity of her novel.

Issue

i. Whether the scope of Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, extends to cases where the copyright has been assigned by contract.

Judgment

The court ruled that Section 57 grants moral rights only to the author of a book, differentiating the same from the rights of a bare copyright owner. The ruling made it clear that an author continues to have the right to prohibit distortion, mutilation, or any alteration of their work even after assigning partial or complete copyright ownership. The defendants tried to use contractual terms as a defense, claiming that the alterations were allowed under the contract. However, the court held that Section 57 prevails over contractual terms when alterations radically change the author's original idea and harm their reputation.

The court recognized that some adjustments are required when adapting a novel into a film and that slight modifications could be acceptable. Nevertheless, it stressed that any alteration of the novel cannot be accepted. During the proceedings, the parties reached a settlement, wherein it was agreed that neither Mannu Bhandari's name nor the title of her novel would be displayed in the film's credits.

Conclusion

The case of Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd. reinforced the fundamental importance of moral rights in Indian copyright law. The decision confirmed that an author's creative integrity is safeguarded under Section 57 so that literary and artistic works continue to be in their intended form even after the grant of copyright. This case is an important precedent, demonstrating how Indian courts understand moral rights to strike a balance between creative freedom and the protection of an author's artistic and reputational interests.

2. Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India

The case of Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India is an important precedent in Indian trademark law concerning the author's moral right under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Facts of the Case

Amar Nath Sehgal, a very famous Indian sculptor, was given the task of making a bronze mural for the Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi in the 1960s. This mural, which had a length of about 140 feet and a height of 40 feet, was placed in a prominent place in the lobby of Vigyan Bhavan. The mural, however, was removed from the wall during the 1970s by government authorities and then discarded in the warehouse without any adequate care, which subsequently resulted in its deterioration. Sehgal, after becoming aware of the condition in which his artwork was, filed a case against the Union of India, stating that the government's actions had infringed on his moral rights as an artist.

Issues

i. Whether moral rights concerning the mural that were retained by the artist also retained in the case of the government's ownership of the actual piece

ii. Whether the government's act of removing and storing the mural improperly is a violation of these moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957

Judgment

In 2005, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Sehgal, emphasizing the significance of moral rights in protecting an artist's intellectual creativity. The court held that an artist possesses the right to claim authorship and to object to any distortion, mutilation, or modification of their work that would be prejudicial to their honor or reputation, as enshrined in Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The government's actions in removing and neglecting the mural amounted to a violation of Sehgal's moral rights, as these actions compromised the integrity and honor of the artwork. Consequently, the court ordered the return of the mural to Sehgal and awarded him damages of Rs.5,00,00.

Conclusion

This judgment underscored the importance of moral rights in Indian copyright law, affirming that these rights persist independently of economic rights and ownership. The case set a precedent for the protection of artists' rights to preserve the integrity of their creations.

3. Sajeev Pillai v Venu Kunnapalli

Mamangam (transl. Festival) is a Mollywood period action film released in the year 2019

Facts

In this case, The appellant is a film director and writer who claims to have researched the history of a grand ancient festival "Mamankam" and had written a script for a film on this subject. He had signed an agreement with the respondent to make a film on this. It was contended that the appellant was supposed to be the director but was replaced shortly after and the film was completed after changing this and damaging the script. A suit was filed to restrain from releasing or distributing the film which the district court denied. The counsel for the respondent held that the appellant had sold his authorship for a sum of three lakhs and so he was not entitled to get the credit regarding the story or screenplay nor can he stop the release of a big-budgeted film.

Issues

Whether the author can still claim moral rights (Section 57) even after selling his authorship

Judgment

The court analyzed the Copyright Act ,1957, referred to Section 2(d), Section 18 and Section 57(1) which prescribes that even after the assignment of the copyright in a work the author will have special rights to claim the authorship of the work.

According to section 57 of the act, the rights of an author is always protected because it places the author in an elevated position and copyright gives rights to the creators for their work. The court held that the author of the work is the creator and it is his idea that was developed as a screenplay for the movie and he is a rightful owner of the script. Therefore the Kerala High Court held that an author has the legal right to protect his intellectual property even after he has sold his authorship.

Enthiran (transl. Robot) is a 2010 Kollywood Sci-Fic action film

4. Aarur Tamilnadan v Sankar and Another

Facts

In this case, The plaintiff was a writer who had claimed to have written a story about a humanoid robot "Jugiba" which was published in a Tamil monthly magazine "Iniya Udayam".The story was that of a scientist named Robin who created a robot with extraordinary human capabilities. When he called his love Josephin to see his "Jugiba",the robot expresses its love towards her and on Robin's denial, Jugiba jumps from the streets and commits suicide. The plaintiff claimed that the story of Jugiba is pirated in the film "Enthiran" and the plaintiff being the first owner of the copyright hadn't given permission to use the story.

Issues

1.Whether the plaintiff is the author and first owner of the copyright of the story Enthiran?

2.Whether the film is the infringed story of the plaintiff's Jugiba?

Analysis

It is found that there can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter ,themes or plot and if there is a violation in such cases, it is confined to the manner and expression of the idea by the author of the copyright work. It is to be noted whether the similarities between the copyright work and original work are on the fundamental aspects of the mode of expression .The court has to determine whether the defendant has adopted the manner, arrangement and scene to scene order of the original work.

Judgement

The court held that the suit was dismissed and the plaintiff was directed to pay the cost of the suit to the defendants.

Types of Authorship

Authorship under the Copyright Act may be classified as follows:

3.1. Sole Authorship

A work will have sole authorship where a single person creates the work and has full control over the creativity of the work. As per section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the author of a job is usually the first owner of the copyright.

3.2. Joint Authorship

Join authorship exists when two or more people jointly work on a piece of work, and their inputs are inseparable or interdependent. Section 2(z) of the Copyright Act states "work of joint authorship" means a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of one author is not distinct from the contribution of the other author or authors;"

For a work to be considered one of joint authorship, the following conditions must be fulfilled:

a. Collaboration: There should be a collaborative effort to produce an integrated work.

b. Inseparable Contributions: The separate contributions should blend into one work, rendering them inseparable.

1.Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia (2009)

This case dealt with the issue of joint authorship with respect to musical works. The court held that the contributions of the authors must be inseparable and cannot be distinguished from each other to be considered a work of joint authorship.

2.Najma Heptulla v Orient Longman Ltd. And Ors.

'India Wins Freedom' is the autobiography of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad

Facts

In this case, The dispute concerns the autobiography of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, titled India Wins Freedom, which was documented by Professor Humayun Kabir based on Maulana Azad’s recitations and notes. Maulana would narrate his life experiences, and Professor Kabir would write them down, after which Maulana reviewed and approved the content. The book was completed in 1957, but before it could be published, Maulana Azad passed away in 1958.

Following his passing, Professor Kabir approached the National Archive Library, requesting them to be the trustee of the book, including 30 additional sealed pages meant to be published 30 years later. He then entered into an agreement with Oriental Longman Ltd. to publish the book, excluding the sealed pages. Maulana Azad’s legal heirs, his sister Fatima Begum and nephew Noorudin Khan, initially agreed to this arrangement.

Later, the court ruled that Noorudin alone held the rights over all of Maulana’s writings, whether published or unpublished. Thus, when Oriental Longman planned to release the additional 30 pages in 1988, they sought Noorudin’s approval, which he granted through a written agreement.

However, the plaintiff, the granddaughter of Fatima Begum, later challenged this arrangement. She sent a legal notice to the National Archive Library, asserting that Maulana’s legal heirs held the sole rights over all his works and demanded that the sealed pages remain unopened and that Oriental Longman Ltd. be barred from publishing them without her consent.

Issues

i. Whether Maulana Azad was the sole author of ‘India Wins Freedom’?

ii. Whether Professor Kabir had the authority to enter into an agreement with Oriental Longman Ltd. regarding the said book?

Judgement

The Court examined the meaning of the term “author” in relation to Maulana Azad’s and Professor Kabir’s authorship and their joint authorship status and held that “both Maulana Azad and Professor Kabir were joint authors.”

The court emphasized that authorship implies not only the idea’s conception but also its expression and fixation in a particular form. Since Professor Kabir translated, edited, and compiled what Maulana Azad dictated, he was more than a mere transcriber, hence qualifying as a joint author.

According to sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act of 1957, express consent of the legal representatives of a deceased joint author is required if that author’s copyright is assigned. Nevertheless, since Maulana Azad’s heirs had accepted payment of the royalties and endeavored to confirm the agreement, they were, based on the principles of Promissory and Equitable Estoppel, barred from questioning the agreement.

The plaintiff was not awarded an injunction because he did not demonstrate that he would suffer any irreparable loss. Nevertheless, Orient Longman Ltd was ordered to pay the plaintiff one lakh rupees as security.

Conclusion

The judgment explained that an author's role extends beyond providing concepts; it also covers organizing and articulating them appropriately. Conceptualize a joint authorship as an intellectual contribution, as in the case of Professor Kabir. Consent from a deceased co-author’s legal heirs is needed to sever a joint author’s copyright claim.

This case is crucial for defining the position of joint authors and the impact of copyright agreements in Indian law.

3.3 Anonymous and Pseudonymous Authorship

In Indian copyright law, there's a special focus on protecting anonymous and pseudonymous works, as outlined in Section 23 of the Copyright Act, 1957. This section addresses how long copyright lasts based on whether the author's identity is known.

Anonymous Works: These works where the author's identity is completely hidden.

Pseudonymous Works: These are works created by author who uses a pen name or fake name.

According to Section 23(1)"In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (other than a photograph), which is published anonymously or pseudonymously, copyright shall subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published:

Provided that where the identity of the author is disclosed before the expiry of the said period, copyright shall subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the author dies."

If the author's identity is disclosed during that sixty-year period, the copyright duration changes to the author's lifetime plus sixty years, beginning from the start of the calendar year after the author's death.

The Act specifies that an author's identity is considered disclosed when both the author and the publisher are in satisfaction of the Copyright Board.

Difference between Ownership and Authorship

The concepts of ownership and authorship are essential in understanding different roles in fields such as literature, music, cinema, art, and software development. In the legal framework an author is the creator of a work, who has authorship rights whereas an owner is one who holds the rights over the work. An author doesn't have to be the owner of the copyright.

In works of music, artistic or literary works, and cinematography, there is a complex relationship between authorship and ownership of work. For example, if the composer of music or lyricist is employed under a contract of service to compose the work, it is established that the employer is the first owner of the copyright of the work.

Interpretation of Section 17 of Copyright Act, 1957

Section 17. First owner of copyright.—

"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein:

Provided that­— (a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or artistic work made by the author in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of service or apprenticeship, for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, the said proprietor shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to the publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to the reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published, but in all other respects the author shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work;

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), in the case of a photograph taken, or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film made, for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;"

(c) in the case of a work made in the course of the author’s employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, to which clause (a) or clause(b) does not apply, the employer shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;"

(cc) in the case of any address or speech delivered in public, the person who has delivered such address or speech or if such person has delivered such address or speech on behalf of any other person, such other person shall be the first owner of the copyright therein notwithstanding that the person who delivers such address or speech, or, as the case may be, the person on whose behalf such address or speech is delivered, is employed by any other person who arranges such address or speech or on whose behalf or premises such address or speech is delivered;

(d) in the case of a Government work, Government shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;

(dd)in the case of a work made or first published by or under the direction or control of any public undertaking, such public undertaking shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause and section 28A, "public undertaking" means—

(i)an undertaking owned or controlled by Government; or

(ii)a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); or

(iii)a body corporate established by or under any Central, Provincial or State Act;

(e)in the case of a work to which the provisions of section 41 apply, the international organisation concerned shall be the first owner of the copyright therein"

The Author of a work if the first owner of copyright (General Principle)

According to Section 17, the author of a work is the first owner of copyright.

Literary works (books, articles, poems, etc.)

The author of a literary work (such as a book or an article) is the first owner of copyright. This means that if you write a book, article, or research paper, you automatically own the rights to it. In the case of compilation works such as an encyclopedia, there is a copyright for the entire compilation and for the separate works. The one who compiles the work is said to be the author of the work who has the authorship.

Artistic works (paintings, sculptures, drawings, graphic designs, etc.)

The artist is the first owner of the copyright. In the case of artistic and literary works made by an author in the course of employment for the purpose of publishing in a newspaper or magazine, the proprietors are said to be the first owners of the copyright. It is an exception to section 17(1) of the Copyright, Act, 1957, where the author is employed for a work, the employer is the first owner of the copyright.

Musical compositions (songs, instrumental music, etc.)

The first owner of the copyright is the composer of the work. If a composer or lyricist is hired by a producer to make a cinematograph film and is paid for the work, the producer becomes the first owner of the copyright. If the composer is under a contract of service or apprenticeship, then the producer also becomes the owner. This means that the creator (author) of the music or lyrics loses ownership unless there is a contract stating otherwise.The one who commissions a musical work is not the owner but has the license to use work for the purpose it was commissioned.In the case of sound recording ,the producer is the owner and the author of the copyright.

Cinematographic works (movies, short movies, web series, documentaries, advertisements)

An Indian company specializing in manufacturing tyres for bicycles, motorcycles, and three-wheelers.

MRF Tyres, is an Indian multinational tyre manufacturing company and the largest manufacturer of tyres in India.

It's extremely important to differentiate between an author and an owner when it comes to cinema. When a contract is entered between a director and the producer, it suggests that there is a transfer of ownership but does not mean that there is a transfer of authorship and the director is disqualified from being considered an author. In MRF v Metro Tyres,the plaintiffs were a tyre manufacturer and seller who had created an audio-visual advertisement and it was found that the defendants had created a similar advertisement.The said advertisement was considered to be a cinematographic work and was entitled to copyright protection. The court held that a movie is an original work of authorship and that there was no substantial similarity between the two works. In the Indian context, the ownership of a film lies with the producer/financier. Many works included in the film like script and music have separate copyrights.

Dramatic works (plays, scripts, choreography, etc.)

Dramatic works refer to plays, scripts, screenplays, choreography, and other performances that involve spoken, written, or physical action. The author of the dramatic work is the first owner of copyright.

Section 17(cc) of the act also specifies that in cases where a speech is delivered in public, the person who makes the speech is said to be the first owner of the copyright.

If a writer takes down matter word by word dictated by a person ,the person who dictates the content is the author and copyright owner of the work. If a teacher writes a book on the subject they teach ,the teacher will be the author and copyright owner because he is not employed to write text books but to teach.

Statutory Exceptions

According to Section 17 of the Copyright Act,1957, the general principle is that the author of a work is the initial owner of the copyright. However, there are several exceptions to this rule.

Literary, Dramatic, and Artistic Works

Section 17(a) states that if an author creates a literary, dramatic, or artistic work while working under a contract of service or apprenticeship for a newspaper, magazine, or similar publication, the publisher becomes the first owner of the copyright. This only applies to the work's publication in that specific newspaper or magazine. For any use, the author keeps the copyright unless there is an agreement in place.

Photographs, Paintings, Portraits, Engravings, and Cinematographic Films

Under Section 17(b), if a painting, photograph, portrait, engraving, or cinematographic film is created for payment at someone's request, the person who commissioned the work will be the first owner of the copyright, unless there is a prior agreement that says otherwise. Additionally, if these works are made while employed by a newspaper, magazine, or periodical, the employer(the publisher) will own the copyrigght for the publication in that magazine, but the creator may still hold ownership for other uses.

Works Created Under Employment

According to Section 17(c), when an author produces a work during their employment under a contract of service or traineeship, the employer(unless it is a newspaper or magazine) will be the first owner of the copyright, unless there is a different agreement in place.

Public Speeches and Lectures

According to Section 17(cc), the individual giving a speech or public address holds the copyright as the first owner. However, if the speech is delivered on behalf of someone else or an organization, then the copyright belongs to that organization or employer.

Government Works

Under Section 17(d), if a work is created as a part of government employment or commissioned by the government, the Government of India is recognized as the first owner of the copyright, unless there is a different agreement in place

Fisher v Brooker and another

In this case, the claimant and the first defendant were members of a band that released a single record in the year 1967 called " A Whiter Shade of Pale" which was an instant hit and one of the greatest songs of the time. The original music was composed by the first defendant and the claimant composed an eight-bar introductory melody and a variation of it which he played as an organ solo. The claimant left the band later on and released his entitlement to the royalties relating to the band's work and the first defendant continued to exploit the band's work including the song.

"A Whiter Shade of Pale" is a song by the English rock band Procol Harum that was issued as their debut record on 12 May 1967

The claimant notified the first defendant that he was a joint author of the work and a joint owner of the copyright and issued proceedings. The court held that the contribution of the claimant was significant to the song and was a productive skill and labor. It was held that he was entitled to the declarations that he was a joint author of the work and that he was a joint owner of the copyright to the extent of 40%.

Ramesh Sippy v Shaan Ranjeet Uttam Singh

It was held in this case, When a partnership firm makes a film and takes various steps like funding it the partners of the firm would be the joint authors and owners of the copyright. The film was completed in August 1975 but was not ready on the day the plaintiff retired from the said firm. On the date of retirement the firm had not acquired the authorship in the copyright of the film. At the time of completion of the film and time of publication, the plaintiff was not a partner or a producer of the film and could not have been the author or owner of the said film.

Copyright ownership rights

A copyright owner has a number of economic rights which is listed out in section 14.

• Right of reproduction: It is the exclusive right to prevent others from copying or reproducing the work in any form without the authorization of the owner of the copyright. Reproducing a work without the owners permission takes away the economic benefits from the owner of the copyright and it comes within the purview of economic rights to prevent such infringement. It need not be copy of the entire work but copying even a part of the work is considered to be a violation.
• Rights of public performance, broadcasting and communication to the public: The owner of the copyright is the only one who has the right to perform the work in public or it would require the authorization of the Owner.
• Rights of translation and adaptation: The owners have the  exclusive right to authorize translations and adaptations of their original work. The right of adaptation includes conversion, alteration, transcription, Re- arranging a work . The right of translation means that the owner of the copyright work has the right to translate the work into any other language that they want.
• Right to distribute: The act of distribution may be in the form of sale or lending for a consideration or for free. The owner of the copyrighted work has the right to distribute the work in the market and gain economic benefits from it.

It is to be noted that an owner of the copyright enjoys economic rights that protects their financial gains whereas the author enjoys moral rights that protects their reputation and creative interests. In cases where the author is not the owner of the copyright ,there is a clear distinction noticed between the rights enjoyed by an author and an owner.

Aspect	Authorship	Ownership
Meaning	The person who creates the work, has authorship of that work	The person.entity who holds legal rights over the work, has ownership of that work
Rights	Moral Rights: Paternity Rights and Integrity Rights	Economic Rights
Legal Basis	Section 2(d)	Section 17
Transferablity	Cannot be transferred	Can be transferred or sold

Research that engages with "Authorship"

Authorship of AI Generated Works Under The Copyright Act, 1957: an Analytical Study

This paper explores the new treads of authorship between the Copyright law and Artificial Intelligence (Al), and its regulatory framework. It studies the practicality and legal consequences of granting authorship rights to AI in copyrighted content. It further understands the definition of "author" according to Section 2(d) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, which does not mention about the legal personality of the author, questioning whether AI can be considered for the eligibility of the authorship.

International Experience

The concept of "authorship" can be understood from the provisions in the legislation of other countries such as the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US), although it is not directly defined anywhere.

United Kingdom

Section 10 of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 defines- "Work of joint authorship "as "(1) a work created by two or more authors working together, with each author's contribution not being distinct from the others." With this, we can understand the rights of the authors over their created work.

Section 10A of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act,1988 defines the works of co-authorship. A work of co-authorship is set to be a work produced by the collaboration of the author of a musical work and the author of a literary work where two works are created in order to be used together. According to Section 10 (1 A), a film can be treated as a work of joint authorship unless the producer and the principal director are the same person and a broadcast can be treated as a work of joint authorship while more than one person is making the broadcast.

United States

We can understand the term "authorship" from Section 102: Subject matter of copyright: In general as- "the original works of authorship refers to creative expressions fixed in a tangible from, such as writings, music, plays, dances, visual arts, films, recordings, and architectural designs. These works are protected by copyright law and include literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pictorial, graphic, sculptural , audiovisual, and architectural creations. Copyright does not cover ideas, processes, systems, methods, concepts, principles, or discoveries, regardless of how they are presented in the work."

The Berne Convention

The Berne Convention is an international treaty that establishes copyright protection for literary and artistic works. It was adopted in 1886 in Berne, Switzerland, and has been amended several times, with the latest revision in 1971(Paris Act). This treaty is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization(WIPO)

Article 2(1) of the Convention states that "The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatical-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical composition with or without words; cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science.".

This Article explains the subject matter included in the term "literary and artistic works". It also signifies that the work must be in tangible form (written, recorded or documented) to qualify for copyright protection. Mere ideas are not protected, but the expression of ideas in a tangible form are protected.

Universal Copyright Convention

The convention was adopted in the year 1952 as a response to some of the shortcomings of the Berne Convention. India is a signatory to the Convention. It aims to protect the rights of authors across literary, artistic and scientific works . It mandates that the States provide a minimum set of rights to the authors for their work.

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS):

It incorporates provisions from the Berne Convention and aims to provide protection for literary and artistic works.

Challenges

In the age of technological development, the significance of artificial intelligence is seen in almost every sphere of life. It is important to understand where the legislations stand in addressing works by artificial intelligence or with the help of AI.

The US Copyright Office issued guidelines for copyright registration for AI-generated material. The guidelines emphasized on the requirement of human authorship to secure copyright protection. In the US Copyright Act, 1976, the term 'author' refers to humans and thus it is necessary that work must be a product of human creativity even if it includes AI technology.AI technologies work based on the prompt given by its users and generates material. Here the technology decides the expressive elements of the output and will not be considered a product of human authorship. In some cases AI generated material is modified to such a degree that it is considered for copyright protection. It is important that the human creativity is employed in the creation of the work. In the case of Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v Sarony , the defendant was accused of making unauthorized copies of a photograph and claimed that "a photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author". The court held that a photograph can be subjected to copyright as long as it is the original intellectual conception of the author.

Thaler v. U.S. Copyright Office (2023)

Facts

In August 2019, Dr. Stephen Thaler applied for copyright registration for an artwork created entirely by AI, using his Creativity Machine. The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) rejected the application, stating that copyright law requires human authorship. Thaler challenged this decision under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the AI system was the true author while he, as the machine’s owner, should hold the copyright.

Despite multiple appeals, the USCO upheld its decision, maintaining that the work lacked the necessary human element for copyright protection. The case was taken to court, where both sides filed motions for summary judgment. Thaler later attempted to introduce evidence of his own human involvement, contradicting his earlier claim that the work was entirely AI-generated.

Issue

Whether work created solely by an AI system be granted copyright protection?

Judgement

The court examined the definition of "author" in copyright law and found that the term is not explicitly defined in the Copyright Act or the U.S. Constitution. However, historical precedent and legal definitions suggest that copyright is meant to incentivize human creativity.

Relying on past rulings like Burrow-Giles Lithographic v. Sarony (1884), the court reaffirmed that only human-created works qualify for copyright. It rejected Thaler’s ownership claims and ruled that AI-generated works are ineligible for copyright protection.

The court acknowledged the growing legal challenges of AI-generated content but emphasized that this particular case was straightforward—Thaler had explicitly stated that no human was involved in creating the work, making it ineligible for copyright.

Conclusion

The court upheld the USCO’s rejection of AI-generated copyright, reinforcing the principle that human creativity is essential for copyright protection. However, it acknowledged that future cases may require a more nuanced approach as AI tools become more integrated into creative work.

While the ruling maintains the status quo, it raises important questions about how AI-generated content should be handled in the evolving digital landscape. The suggestion that even minimal human involvement could meet the copyright threshold leaves the door open for further legal debates in the future.

The UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act provides for copyright protection of computer generated books which do not have a human creator. When there is no human author ,the author of such a work is the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken and the protection lasts for 50 years.

Section 2(d)(vi) of the Act defines an "author" for computer-generated works as " in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created" This definition is vague, as it does not fully account for cases where AI functions independently. Some experts, like Professor Ryan Abbott, argue that AI should be recognized as an author to promote technological progress. However, legal challenges arise since non-human entities are not natural persons and cannot be held accountable in court. In India, copyright law still assumes that only humans can be authors. Therefore, the Act does not paint an accurate picture of the production of work in cases where the original maker is not a human.