IMPACT OF AI UNDER IPR LAWS
Introduction:
Technology plays a very important role in today's world. It has led to a great revolution in human life. Those tasks, which may be considered impossible to be done around 50 to 100 years ago, are done today within minuites. This development has not only made human life much simpler, but has also increased its interdependence. Such development which was initiated as a mean to simplify human life has now become the end for the same. The same story goes with AI. As it was started as a mean to simplify human life, we never came to know when it became our end. Due to such interdependence, human has stopped using his god gifted intelligence, and has relied upon it for even the smallest task. Not only interdependence, the emergence of AI has also led to serious offences including plagiarism and copyright. In the following article let us have a look at how AI impacted the Intellectual Property Laws.
Impact Of AI Under IPR Laws:
Considering the IPR laws, these are exclusive rights granted to creators over their original works and inventions for a specific period, providing them commercial benefits and encouraging innovation. They safeguard the intellect of a person by granting creators and inventors exclusive legal rights to their original creations, such as inventions, literary works, designs, and brand identifiers.
But the core issue arising out of this is that such a right is often violated by the invention of Artificial Intelligence. The scope of Artificial Intelligence has broadened so much that music, mimicry or any such act can be produced AI Generated. This also includes lyrics of songs, poems, voiceover, which has not only reduced the burden of various artists but also has given arise to various offences including plagiarism and copyright. This is a very debatable issue bearing people having their own distinguished opinion upon the same.
In the present scenario being AI so much developed, the current debate is that the ownership of AI generated material lies upon whom. The developer, the user or AI itself. Various thinkers have an opinion that AI generated material must be regulated in order it does not violate the rights of the official holder of such rights. Whereas others have an opinion that it only shows content which is available publicly and does not require any regulatory framework. Lets analyse both the views in relevance of recent landmark cases. But before this, let us analyse the definition of copyright under the Copyright Act 1957.
Definition Of Copyright (Section 14 Of The Copyright Act 1957):
14. Meaning of Copyright— For the purposes of this Act, “copyright” means the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely:—
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a computer programme—
(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means;
(ii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation;
(iii) to perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public;
(iv) to make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work;
(v) to make any translation of the work;
(vi) to make any adaptation of the work;
(vii) to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work, any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (vi);
(b) in the case of a computer programme,—
(i) to do any of the acts specified in clause (a);
(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for commercial rental any copy of the computer programme: Provided that such commercial rental does not apply in respect of computer programmes where the programme itself is not the essential object of the rental.
(c) in the case of an artistic work,— (i) to reproduce the work in any material form including— (A) the storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means; or (B) depiction in three-dimensions of a two-dimensional work; or (C) depiction in two-dimensions of a three-dimensional work;
(ii) to communicate the work to the public;
(iii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation;
(iv) to include the work in any cinematograph film;
(v) to make any adaptation of the work;
(vi) to do in relation to adaptation of the work any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (iv);
(d) in the case of a cinematograph film,— (i) to make a copy of the film, including— (A) a photograph of any image forming part thereof; or (B) storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means;
(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for such rental, any copy of the film;
(iii) to communicate the film to the public;
(e) in the case of a sound recording—
(i) to make any other sound recording embodying it 1 [including storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means];
(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for such rental, any copy of the sound recording;
(iii) to communicate the sound recording to the public;
Landmark Cases Under Which AI Was Considered As A Violation Of Intellectual Property:
In the case of ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI Inc. & Anr. being pending in the Delhi High Court: Under this, ANI, one of India’s largest news agencies, sued OpenAI alleging that its copyrighted news reports were used without authorization to train ChatGPT. ANI sought ₹2 crore in damages and a permanent injunction restraining the use, storage, or reproduction of its content. OpenAI contested jurisdiction, arguing its operations are U.S.-based, and denied using ANI’s material for training, noting it had block-listed ANI’s website since 2024. The Delhi High Court is currently considering whether training large language models on news content amounts to copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957, and whether Indian courts can exercise jurisdiction over a foreign AI company.
Also in the landmark case of Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP & Ors. (Bombay High Court, I.A. (L) 23560 of 2024 in COM IPR Suit (L) 23443 of 2024) Under this case, playback singer Arijit Singh approached the Bombay High Court after multiple AI platforms created unauthorized voice clones, GIFs, and merchandise exploiting his persona. Singh argued this violated his personality rights and moral rights as recognized under the Copyright Act. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Codible Ventures LLP (the lead defendant) and numerous other AI service providers from using his name, likeness, or voice, including AI-generated replicas. The order is significant as it establishes judicial protection against the misuse of a celebrity’s persona in the AI era. On July 26, 2024, Bombay High Court (Justice R. I. Chagla) issued a strong ad-interim injunction, protecting singer Arijit Singh’s personality and publicity rights. The court found that allowing AI tools and online platforms to generate content mimicking his voice, likeness, name, photograph, mannerisms, signature, and persona, without his consent, was prima facie a violation of his rights and shocked the Court’s conscience. Consequently, the order restrained Defendants 1–25, 37, and 38 from exploiting his personality traits through any technology—AI voice models, voice-conversion tools, GIFs, deepfakes, domain names, merchandise, or other media—for commercial or personal gain, without authorization. Furtherly, the court also ordered defendants to edit or remove infringing content, and ordered domain locks on arijitsingh.com and arijitsingh.in.
In the landmark case of Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. (Delhi High Court, CS(COMM) 652/2023) Veteran actor Anil Kapoor filed suit against Simply Life India and 15 other parties for unauthorized commercial use of his name, photographs, voice, and catchphrase “Jhakaas” through merchandise, AI-generated deepfakes, and online content. The Delhi High Court, recognizing his publicity and personality rights, granted a sweeping interim injunction preventing the defendants from exploiting his persona in any form, including via artificial intelligence, deepfake, or face-morphing technologies.
Permissive use of AI as per Indian Legal Standards:
Considering Indian courts, they have not yet recognized AI use as “fair dealing” under IPR law mainly because the Copyright Act, 1957 provides only a narrow, closed list of exceptions under Section 52 (such as private use, research, criticism, or reporting), unlike the flexible U.S. “fair use” doctrine; there is also no legislative update to cover AI training or text/data mining, and the judiciary has shown a protective stance in cases like Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP (2024) and ANI v. OpenAI (2024), where injunctions were granted against AI misuse to safeguard personality rights and copyright. This caution is reinforced by fears of economic harm to India’s vulnerable media and entertainment industries and the growing judicial emphasis on publicity/personality rights, making courts reluctant to stretch the law in favour of AI without clear statutory backing.
Conclusion:
Considering the conclusion for the same, under the following article, we have referred to the impact of AI and its changing status with society. We have also analysed certain judgements upon the uncertain use of AI violating the intellectual property of various stakeholders. Followingly, we also have reviewed the view of Indian Courts considering recent landmark cases where the court held a restraint upon the wrongful usage of AI. Considering my personal view, I personally feel that there should be a regulatory framework or censorship upon AI such that it protects the status of the absolute right holders. AI should only be used as a relative mean, but not an end which surpasses human creative and innovative thinking.