Delhi HC Directs Time-Bound Decision on AI Generated Artwork Copyright Plea

The Delhi High Court has directed the Copyright Office to expeditiously decide an application filed by Stephen Thaler seeking copyright registration for an artwork generated by an artificial intelligence system developed by him, underscoring the need for timely adjudication in matters raising emerging questions at the intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property law.

A single judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while taking note of the prolonged pendency of the application since 2022, directed that the hearing scheduled before the Copyright Office be conducted and the proceedings be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of hearing.

The Court passed the direction after recording the submission of the Registrar of Copyright that the matter has now been listed for hearing on April 27, and observed that a time-bound decision was warranted given the absence of any effective progress over the past several years.

The proceedings arise from an application filed by Thaler seeking copyright registration for an artistic work titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”, which was generated using an artificial intelligence system known as DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), developed by him.

The application has remained pending without substantive adjudication, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking directions for its disposal.

Before the Court, Thaler contended that despite the issuance of notice and lapse of nearly four years, the Copyright Office had failed to either conduct a meaningful hearing or pass any order on his application.

It was argued that such inaction had caused prejudice, particularly in a rapidly evolving technological landscape where questions concerning the ownership and protection of AI-generated works are becoming increasingly significant.

The Court, without entering into the merits of the petitioner’s claim, confined its consideration to the procedural aspect of delay and the need to ensure that statutory authorities discharge their functions within a reasonable timeframe.

It observed that prolonged inaction in such matters undermines the efficacy of legal remedies and necessitates judicial intervention to secure timely adjudication.

The dispute also brings into focus the interpretation of the Copyright Act, 1957, particularly the provision recognising “computer-generated works” and stipulating that the author of such works shall be the person who causes the work to be created.

The petitioner’s case rests on the assertion that although the artwork was generated autonomously by an artificial intelligence system, he, as the developer and operator of the system, satisfies the statutory requirement of authorship.

At a broader level, the case raises significant questions concerning the contours of authorship, originality and ownership in the context of works generated by non-human systems.

While the Indian statutory framework contemplates computer-generated works, it does not explicitly address scenarios where the creative process is substantially driven by artificial intelligence without direct human input.

Internationally, similar claims advanced by Thaler have not met with success.

Courts in jurisdictions such as the United States and the United Kingdom have declined to recognise artificial intelligence systems as authors, emphasising the centrality of human creativity in copyright law.

In a recent development, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to entertain a petition challenging the denial of copyright registration for the same artwork.

The Delhi High Court’s present order, however, does not engage with these substantive questions and is limited to ensuring that the petitioner’s application is decided within a fixed timeframe.

By directing the Copyright Office to conclude proceedings within eight weeks of the scheduled hearing, the Court has sought to balance administrative autonomy with the need for accountability and efficiency.

A decision recognising the petitioner’s claim could potentially expand the scope of copyright protection to encompass AI-generated works, subject to the interpretation of statutory provisions. Conversely, a rejection may reinforce the prevailing human-centric understanding of authorship under copyright law.

As artificial intelligence continues to reshape creative processes across industries, the case highlights the pressing need for clarity in legal frameworks governing emerging technologies.

Case Title: Stephen Thaler v. Union of India

Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

With Inputs From HT