AI Can Create Original Work But Cannot Be Its Author, Indian Copyright Office Holds

The Indian Copyright Office ruled that an AI system cannot be named the author of a work it creates, even when the output is deemed original and eligible for copyright protection, in a decision resolving a long-pending application by US researcher Stephen Thaler for his AI system DABUS. Registrar of Copyright Prof (Dr) Unnat Pandit held that the artwork 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise' meets the originality threshold but that autonomy in execution is not synonymous with conception, marking the first time the office has handled an AI authorship claim. The ruling diverges from some global precedents and follows the Delhi High Court's July ruling in ANI vs OpenAI, clarifying India's stance that AI-generated output can be protected but not authored by AI.

September 1, 2026 , Inside AI — A machine can paint, write, or compose, but it cannot sign its name as author. The Indian Copyright Office has ruled that an AI system cannot be named the author of a work it creates, even when the output is deemed original and eligible for copyright protection. The decision resolves a long-pending application by US researcher Stephen Thaler, who sought to register an artwork titled 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise' with his AI system DABUS listed as sole author. The office rejected that authorship claim while acknowledging the artwork itself meets the originality threshold. 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 work "possesses sufficient independently generated expressive character to cross the limited threshold", the order stated. The ruling arrives months after the Delhi High Court directed the office to decide whether an AI system can claim sole authorship. Thaler had argued through advocate Ankit Sahni that DABUS generated the final artwork without real-time human intervention or text prompts after being configured and trained. "Transparency requires the Register to reflect the actual mode of creation," Thaler said in his submission. He sought attribution to DABUS not to give the AI legal personality, but to accurately record how the artwork was created. The office drew a firm line between machine execution and human conception. "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. Autonomy in execution is not synonymous with conception of a work," the order stated. "A system may independently execute computational processes after activation, yet those processes continue to operate within the architecture, objectives, parameters, training methodology and operational rules established by the person who conceived and configured the system," the Registrar reasoned. The decision marks the first time the Indian Copyright Office has handled an application where an AI system sought authorship. Senior Advocate Rajeshwari Hariharan assisted the office as amicus curiae in the case. India's Stance Diverges From Global Precedents India's approach now stands apart from several jurisdictions. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, authorship is tied to the human persona or the person who made necessary arrangements for a computer-generated work. China has ruled in favor of corporate ownership for AI-assisted content, as seen in the 2019 Tencent Dreamwriter case. A 2023 Chinese court held that AI-generated images reflecting original intellectual investment should be protected, but clarified that copyright belongs to the natural person author. An AI model cannot be deemed an author under Chinese law. Thaler has approached 16 jurisdictions worldwide seeking DABUS copyright recognition. In March 2025, a US court refused his application, citing the US Copyright Act's requirement of human authorship. Sahni said the Indian stance offers more clarity than other jurisdictions because it acknowledges AI can create original work. "It will have a huge impact on all creative sectors - media, entertainment, music, publishing, broadcasting, games etc., -- as almost all large entities are using AI extensively to produce content," he said. Delhi High Court's AI Rulings Set Broader Context The Copyright Office decision follows the Delhi High Court's July ruling in ANI vs OpenAI, which held that training large language models on copyrighted material is not infringement as long as the output is distinct from training material. That case involved news agency ANI Media Pvt Ltd suing OpenAI entities over LLM training practices. The combined effect clarifies India's position: AI-generated output can be protected under copyright law, but the author must be a human being. 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 stated. The ruling leaves open questions about how to attribute authorship when multiple humans configure, train, and deploy AI systems. It also does not address whether AI-assisted works with substantial human creative input receive different treatment than fully autonomous outputs. For creative industries racing to adopt generative AI, the decision provides a legal anchor: protection exists for the work, but the human architect remains the author of record.