AI and Copyright in India: Key Lessons from the DABUS Decision

Overview: The Indian Copyright Office recently rejected an application seeking to recognise an artificial intelligence system — DABUS — as the author of an artwork. While the Registrar confirmed that the artwork met the originality threshold under  the Copyright Act, 1957, the application failed because an AI system cannot hold legal authorship. For businesses relying on AI to generate commercial content, this ruling draws a critical line between creative output and legal rights

The Indian Copyright Office declined an application by US computer scientist Dr Stephen L. Thaler for registration of an artwork, “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”. The application named his AI system – DABUS – as the author. Whilst the office accepted that the artwork met the originality threshold under Section 13, it refused registration because DABUS lacks legal personality and cannot be recognised as an author under Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The 31st August, 2026, decision draws a clear legal line between original output and statutory authorship. Under Section 2(d)(vi), authorship of a computer-generated work belongs to the person who causes it to be created — a role filled by Thaler through his prompting and oversight. When Thaler declined to name himself as author, it created an insurmountable ownership flaw, as an AI system cannot lawfully hold or assign property. Ultimately, the order confirmed that whilst AI can serve as a creative tool, granting legal personhood to autonomous systems requires parliamentary reform rather than administrative reinterpretation.

Key Findings of the Copyright Office

Under Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the author of a computer-generated work is defined as the person who causes the work to be created. The Registrar highlighted two major obstacles in the application:

• Lack of Legal Personality: An AI system is neither a natural person nor a juristic entity recognised by law. Consequently, DABUS cannot be granted authorship or possess property rights.
• The Ownership Transfer Deficit: Under Section 17, the author is generally the first owner of copyright. Because DABUS has no legal standing to hold or assign rights, Thaler could not validly claim copyright ownership derived from an AI author. Although given the option to amend the application to name himself as the author based on his human inputs, Thaler declined.

To understand the practical impact of this decision, it helps to examine how the Copyright Office applied specific provisions of the law. Under Section 13, the artwork satisfied the originality threshold through independent creation and a minimal degree of creativity. However, when evaluating AI authorship under Section 2(d)(vi), the claim was denied because an AI system lacks legal capacity.

The ruling clarified that legal authorship belongs strictly to the human who initiates, configures, and directs the creative process. Finally, regarding ownership of copyright, the Registrar affirmed that any enforceable claim must rest on a valid legal chain of title under Sections 17 to 19 of the Act.

AI-Assisted Work Protection in India

The ruling does not disqualify all AI-assisted content from copyright protection.

The Copyright Office evaluated the visual elements of “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” and noted that it did not copy pre-existing material, thereby meeting the basic requirement of originality under Section 13. However, this finding is specific to the factual record of this case. It does not guarantee automatic copyright for all machine-generated content.

Key Risks and Compliance Checklist

If your business utilises generative AI tools for marketing visuals, branding, software code, or copywriting, this decision highlights four primary operational risks:

1. Unclear Ownership Chains: Generating content via third-party software does not automatically grant you exclusive copyright. You must evaluate the software’s terms of service alongside Indian statutory law.
2. Absence of Proof of Human Effort: Copyright protection requires proving meaningful human intervention in prompting, selecting, structuring, or editing the output.
3. Third-Party Infringement: AI tools trained on web data may produce outputs similar to existing copyrighted or other protected material, exposing your firm to copyright claims.
4. Lack of Internal Governance: Operating without explicit corporate AI rules increases the risk of intellectual property leakages and compliance oversights.

Best Practices to Secure Your Commercial Assets

To establish legal control over your AI-assisted creative assets, maintain a verifiable audit trail documenting:

• The specific prompts, source materials, and parameters supplied to the AI.
• The identity of the employees or contractors who configured and guided the workflow.
• Record of human editing, refinement, curation, and final sign-off.
• Platform terms regarding output ownership and commercial usage rights.

The Horizon for AI Copyright Law

The DABUS decision confirms that under current legislation, an AI system cannot be listed as an author. Expanding rights to autonomous machines would require statutory amendments by Parliament rather than judicial reinterpretation.

For now, businesses must anchor their IP strategy on human creativity and documented processes to safeguard their assets.

Frequently Asked Questions

Setindiabiz Supports

Setindiabiz offers comprehensive guidance on intellectual property management, corporate compliance, and commercial drafting in India. Our legal experts help businesses review AI vendor agreements, establish internal AI usage policies, and protect proprietary assets in an evolving legal landscape.

Author Bio

Editorial Team

Setindiabiz Editorial Team is a multidisciplinary collective of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Advocates offering authoritative insights on India’s regulatory and business landscape. With decades of experience in compliance, taxation, and advisory, they empower entrepreneurs and enterprises to make informed decisions.