Archive · 1 Oct 2026
India's AI Copyright Order Exposes Unsettled Questions of Authorship
An AI system called DABUS created an artwork, and Stephen Thaler wanted the system listed as its author.
India’s Registrar said a machine cannot legally own or transfer copyright.
The Registrar also said the artwork was original enough to qualify for protection.
But being original is different from having a legal author.
Thaler could have listed himself as the author, but he refused.
Other countries use different rules for AI-made works.
Some focus on human creative choices, while Britain has a law assigning authorship to the person who arranged the creation.
China has protected some AI images when users showed substantial creative effort.
The article says India’s Parliament should create clearer rules.
India’s Registrar rejected DABUS as the author of “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.”
The Registrar found the artwork original but said originality does not determine authorship or ownership.
Stephen Thaler was offered the chance to identify himself as author but refused.
U.S. and European approaches generally require meaningful human creative contribution, while Britain permits statutory attribution for some computer-generated works.
The article argues Parliament must clarify AI authorship, ownership, infringement liability and the role of prompts.
- Who
- The Indian Registrar, Stephen Thaler and the AI system DABUS were central to the proceeding.
- What
- The Registrar rejected DABUS as the author of an artwork but found the work sufficiently original for copyright protection.
- When
- The article refers to a hearing on June 24, a March 2025 U.S. appellate ruling, and related decisions in November 2023 and September 2025.
- Where
- The main proceeding took place in India; comparisons are drawn with the United States, United Kingdom, China and the European Union.
- Why
- DABUS has no legal personality or capacity to hold and transfer copyright under the reasoning described in the article.
Human-Creative-Control Approach
Statutory-Attribution Approach
Who can be an author?
Human-Creative-Control Approach
The United States and European approach generally requires identifiable human creative choices in the protected expression; a prompt alone is insufficient.
Statutory-Attribution Approach
The United Kingdom allows legislation to assign authorship of certain computer-generated works to the person who made the necessary arrangements, even without human creative choices appearing in the output.
What makes a user an author?
Human-Creative-Control Approach
A user may qualify through supplied material, selection and arrangement, substantial editing, or a documented process of iterative creative control.
Statutory-Attribution Approach
A broader rule could recognize responsibility for setting up and operating the system, including arrangements that enable autonomous output.
How should India proceed?
Human-Creative-Control Approach
India could follow the case-by-case approach described in China, protecting works when a specific human demonstrates meaningful creative control.
Statutory-Attribution Approach
Only Parliament, rather than a Registrar interpreting existing language, should decide whether autonomous AI output can receive a human author or another form of legal allocation.
- Artwork
- “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”
- AI system
- DABUS
- Applicant
- Stephen Thaler
- Indian provision
- Section 2(d)(vi) defines the author of a computer-generated work as the person who causes it to be created.
- Ownership rule
- Section 17 makes the author the first owner of copyright.
- Originality finding
- The Registrar found the artwork’s arrangement of colour, tone and form sufficiently original and found no evidence that it copied an existing work.
- Legislative issue
- The article says Parliament must clarify human involvement, ownership, fully autonomous output and infringement liability.