Tertius News is an AI-native newsroom: an AI model reads the linked source articles below and extracts what each outlet reported, so you can compare their coverage side by side. How this works →
AI Can Create Original Work but Cannot Be Its Author, India's Copyright Office Rules
India's Copyright Office has ruled that AI-generated works can qualify for copyright protection, but an AI system cannot be legally recognized as an author under the Copyright Act. The August 31 order rejected US researcher Stephen Thaler's application naming his AI system DABUS as the author of an artwork, while holding the work itself original.
By Tertius News AI Desk2 distinct · 2 mastheads · 3 articlesVersion 1Coverage Published
India's Copyright Office has ruled that AI-generated works may qualify for copyright protection, but an AI system itself cannot be recognized as the legal author under the Copyright Act, 1957. The order, passed on August 31 by Registrar of Copyrights Prof. ) Unnat P Pandit, came in response to an application by US AI researcher Stephen Thaler, who sought copyright registration for an artwork created by his AI system, DABUS.
The artwork, titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," was generated by DABUS, short for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience. In his application, Thaler listed DABUS as the author and himself as the copyright owner. He argued that the artwork was produced by the AI system without any real-time human intervention or text prompt, after the system was trained using photographs, thesaurus entries, and English sentences provided by him.
The Ruling
The Copyright Office rejected Thaler's application, saying Indian law recognizes a human being as the author of a copyrighted work. "The law distinguishes between the technological mechanism through which the output is generated and the legally recognised person to whom authorship is attributed," the office said.
The office cited Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, which defines the author of a computer-generated artistic work as the "person who causes the work to be created." The Registrar said DABUS is neither a natural person nor a legal entity recognized under Indian law, and therefore cannot qualify as an author.
The order noted that Thaler had designed, configured, and trained the system and provided the material used in the process, making him the person who caused the work to be created. It further stated, "The fact that a system operates autonomously after being configured does not alter the identity of the person responsible for bringing the work into existence" and "Autonomy in execution is not synonymous with conception of a work."
Originality Upheld
While rejecting AI authorship, the Copyright Office ruled in Thaler's favor on originality. Registrar Pandit held that the standalone artwork can be considered "original" as there is "no clear material on record to prove that the work was copied from some specific source or some other work." He said it "possesses sufficient independently generated expressive character to cross the limited threshold."
The office said an AI-generated work can still meet the test of originality under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, and that the use of algorithms or computer processes alone does not make a work unoriginal.
The office also rejected a fallback request to record DABUS as the technological generator of the artwork. During the proceedings, the office had allowed Thaler to amend the application and name himself as the author, but he declined and continued to maintain that DABUS was the sole author.
Thaler argued that DABUS should be attributed as the sole author, not to give the AI system legal personality or independent enforceable rights, but to accurately record how the artwork was created. "Transparency requires the Register to reflect the actual mode of creation," he said.
Legal Context
The decision comes months after the Delhi High Court in April directed the Copyright Office to decide on whether an AI system can claim sole authorship over a work created using the system. The order is among the first in India to address the question of authorship in AI-generated works.
The order leaves open the possibility of a future application that identifies the author under the Copyright Act, and states that any broader change in the law would have to come from Parliament.
In other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Ireland, authorship is clearly associated with the human persona, or with the person who made the necessary arrangements for a computer-generated work. In 2019, a Chinese court ruled in favor of Tencent's ownership over content written by its AI-writing assistant Dreamwriter. In another case in 2023, a court in China held that AI-generated images reflecting people's original intellectual investment should be recognized as works protected by copyright law, but clarified that an artificial intelligence model cannot be deemed an author under China's copyright law.
How each outlet told it
A framing line is our reading of that outlet's own text — an interpretation, not a quotation and not a fact we assert. Check it against what the outlet published.
Framing: Highlights the office's ruling that AI can create original work but cannot be its author — Informative and neutral, reporting the decision and its context without strong emotional language.
Facts Included:
India's Copyright Office ruled that AI-generated works may qualify for copyright protection, but an AI system itself cannot be recognised as the legal author under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The ruling followed US AI researcher Stephen Thaler's application for copyright registration for an artwork created by his AI system, DABUS.
Registrar of Copyrights Prof. Unnat P Pandit passed the order on August 31, rejecting Thaler’s application, which named DABUS as the author of the artwork A Recent Entrance to Paradise.
Thaler argued that the artwork was produced by the AI system without any real-time human intervention or text prompt.
The Copyright Office rejected this argument, saying Indian law recognises a human being as the author of a copyrighted work.
DABUS is short for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience.
The Copyright Office said under Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Actethe author of a computer-generated artistic work is the 'person who causes the work to be created'.
The Registrar said DABUS is neither a natural person nor a legal entity recognised under Indian law, and therefore cannot qualify as an author.
The Registrar noted that Thaler had designed, configured and trained the system and provided the material used in the process, making him the person who caused the work to be created.
The Copyright Office said an AI-generated work can still meet the test of originality under Section 13 of the Copyright Act.
The office said the use of algorithms or computer processes alone does not make a work unoriginal.
The Copyright Office had allowed Thaler to change his application and name himself as the author, but he declined and continued to maintain that DABUS was the sole author.
Framing: The headline poses a questioning angle: whether an AI can be an author, and frames the Copyright Office's decision as 'drew the line'.
Facts Included:
The Copyright Office order addressed the authorship of an AI-generated artwork titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise."
In 2022, Thaler applied to register copyright in the work.
The application identified DABUS as the author and Thaler as the owner of the copyright.
The Copyright Office objected to the application, asking whether an AI system could legally be recognised as an author under the Copyright Act.
During the proceedings, the Office allowed Thaler to amend the application and identify himself as the author, but he declined.
Section 2(d)(vi) identifies an author of computer-generated works as "the person who causes the work to be created."
The Copyright Office ruled in Thaler's favour on originality, finding that the image was original enough to qualify for copyright protection.
On authorship, the Office said that the Copyright Act treats authorship as a legal status that carries rights and responsibilities, and that an AI system does not presently possess such legal recognition under Indian law.
The Office looked into American copyright cases, including Burrow-Giles and Aalmuhammed v Lee, which distinguished between a tool and the person handling it.
The Office concluded that DABUS was a tool through which the work was generated, while Thaler was the person who legally "caused" it to be created.
The Office rejected a fallback request to simply record DABUS as the technological generator of the artwork.
The order leaves open the possibility of a future application that identifies the author under the Copyright Act.
The order states that any broader change in the law would have to come from Parliament.
Framing: Emphasizes the Copyright Office's distinction that AI can create original work but cannot be its author, highlighting the legal boundary on AI authorship.
Facts Included:
The Copyright Office held that AI can create original work but cannot be its author, distinguishing between the technological mechanism and the legally recognised person to whom authorship is attributed.
The decision comes after the Delhi High Court in April directed the Office to decide on whether an AI system can claim sole authorship over a work created using the system.
The artwork was generated by DABUS, an AI system developed by Thaler, with authorship solely attributed to DABUS in the application.
Thaler argued that DABUS should be attributed as the sole author, not to give the AI system legal personality, but to accurately record how the artwork was created.
Registrar of Copyright, Prof (Dr) Unnat Pandit, held that the standalone artwork can be considered 'original' as there is 'no clear material on record to prove that the work was copied from some specific source or some other work'.
The Copyright Office rejected the application, stating that 'The fact that a system operates autonomously after being configured does not alter the identity of the person responsible for bringing the work into existence' and 'Autonomy in execution is not synonymous with conception of a work'.
The Copyright Office was assisted by Senior Advocate Rajeshwari Hariharan in the case, as amicus curiae.
The decision clarifies that the output side can be protected under law, while training on copyrighted material may not be infringement if output is distinct, as held in July by the HC in ANI vs OpenAI.
News agency ANI Media Pvt Ltd had moved the HC in 2024 against Open AI Inc (OAI) and Open AI OpCo LLC, raising issues of infringement of its copyrighted material for LLM training by OpenAI.
In other countries such as the United Kingdom and Ireland, authorship is clearly associated with the human persona, or with the person who made the necessary arrangements for a computer-generated work.
In 2019, a Chinese court ruled in favour of Tencent’s ownership over content written by its AI-writing assistant Dreamwriter.
In another case in 2023, another court in China held that as long as AI-generated images can reflect people’s original intellectual investment, they should be recognised as works and protected by the Copyright Law, but clarified that an artificial intelligence model cannot be deemed as an author under China’s copyright law.
AI-extracted; can misattribute a claim — see Methodology.
Each row is one claim, attributed to the outlet whose wording states it most clearly. Confidence rates how directly the source text states the claim — explicit and unhedged rates high; hedged, pieced-together, or internally inconsistent statements rate lower. It does not measure whether the claim is true. Status is Contested when two claims on this page negate each other; otherwise it counts the distinct outlets we found asserting that specific claim — so a single-source claim can still show high confidence, and a multi-source claim can show medium. Every one of those outlets is named beside the status, so you can check the count against the list. For claims extracted before we began storing that list, the row says so: it names the outlet the claim is quoted from and states that we have not recorded which outlets backed it. Outlets wrote at different times, so a figure that evolves — a casualty count, for example — can legitimately differ between rows; check the "as of" time next to each claim's source.
Claim
Confidence
Status
ClaimIndia's Copyright Office ruled that AI-generated works may qualify for copyright protection, but an AI system itself cannot be recognised as the legal author under the Copyright Act, 1957.
ClaimThe Registrar noted that Thaler had designed, configured and trained the system and provided the material used in the process, making him the person who caused the work to be created.
ClaimThe Copyright Office had allowed Thaler to change his application and name himself as the author, but he declined and continued to maintain that DABUS was the sole author.
ClaimThe Copyright Office said that the Copyright Act treats authorship as a legal status that carries rights and responsibilities, and that an AI system does not presently possess such legal recognition under Indian law.
ClaimThe Office looked into American copyright cases, including Burrow-Giles and Aalmuhammed v Lee, which distinguished between a tool and the person handling it.
ClaimThe Office concluded that DABUS was a tool through which the work was generated, while Thaler was the person who legally 'caused' it to be created.
ClaimThe decision of the Copyright Office comes after the Delhi High Court in April directed the Office to decide on whether an AI system can claim sole authorship over a work created using the system.
ClaimThaler argued that DABUS should be attributed as the sole author, not to give the AI system legal personality, but to accurately record how the artwork was created.
ClaimRegistrar of Copyright, Prof (Dr) Unnat Pandit, held that the standalone artwork can be considered 'original' as there is 'no clear material on record to prove that the work was copied from some specific source or some other work'.
ClaimThe Copyright Office rejected the application, stating that 'The fact that a system operates autonomously after being configured does not alter the identity of the person responsible for bringing the work into existence' and 'Autonomy in execution is not synonymous with conception of a work'.
ClaimIn July, the Delhi High Court held that training large language models on copyrighted material is not copyright infringement as long as the output being delivered is distinct from the training material.
ClaimNews agency ANI Media Pvt Ltd moved the High Court in 2024 against Open AI Inc (OAI) and Open AI OpCo LLC, raising issues of infringement of its copyrighted material for LLM training by OpenAI.
ClaimIn other countries such as the United Kingdom and Ireland, authorship is clearly associated with the human persona, or with the person who made the necessary arrangements for a computer-generated work.
ClaimIn another case in 2023, a Chinese court held that as long as AI-generated images can reflect people’s original intellectual investment, they should be recognised as works and protected by the Copyright Law, but clarified that an artificial intelligence model cannot be deemed as an author under China’s copyright law.