India Joins the AI-Music Copyright Showdown
The age of generative artificial intelligence has ushered in a revolution in creative expression. Tools powered by large language models, neural networks, and deep learning algorithms can now compose entire songs, mimic human voices, and replicate stylistic elements from renowned artists. In India, this rapid technological evolution raises urgent and unresolved legal questions: when an AI generates a piece of music, who owns it — if anyone? More fundamentally, can Indian copyright law, originally designed around human creativity, meaningfully govern works created by machines? These questions strike at the heart of how the legal system values creativity, innovation, and artistic labour in the AI era.
I. The Indian Legal Framework on Copyright
India’s principal copyright statute, the Copyright Act, 1957, protects “literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works” subject to criteria of originality and authorship. Central to this framework is a concept that presumes human authorship and creativity. The Act defines an author as a natural person who creates a work; it also extends authorship to an employer where specified conditions are met, such as works created in the course of employment. But what happens when a piece of music is generated by a machine?
The Act includes a provision for computer-generated works. According to Section 2(d)(vi), where a work is generated by a computer and there is no human author, the author is deemed to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken. This provision, originally drafted long before modern generative AI, was intended to cover works like procedural compilations or automated outputs where human direction was clear. Its application to current AI tools, which often operate with minimal human intervention beyond prompts, remains legally unclear. Indian courts have yet to interpret this provision in the context of generative AI, leaving a significant gap in understanding whether outputs like AI-composed music can be considered authored by a person under the law.
Indian copyright jurisprudence emphasizes originality arising from human intellectual effort. In R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, the Supreme Court highlighted that an idea or a plot cannot form a part of the copyright, but what does, is how they are subject to presentation. If the same is such that suggests imitation, it would be equivalent to a breach of copyright.
. Similarly, in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, the Supreme Court of India ruled that for a work to be “original” under copyright law, it must not merely involve labor (the “sweat of the brow” doctrine) but must also involve a “modicum of creativity” and the exercise of skill and judgment. Although neither case involved AI, both reflect the judiciary’s human-centric conception of authorship, a doctrine that may complicate attempts to classify AI-generated music as protected works in its own right.
II. Early Judicial Trends: AI, Deepfakes, and Persona Protection
While the Indian judiciary has not yet adjudicated a copyright dispute specifically over AI-generated music, several cases involving AI-generated deepfakes demonstrate how courts are grappling with the interface between artificial intelligence and traditional rights.
In March 2026, the Delhi High Court granted interim protection to cricketer Gautam Gambhir, restraining the creation and dissemination of AI-generated content that used his name, image, voice, or other personal attributes without authorization. This decision, while grounded in personality rights rather than copyright, highlights judicial sensitivity to the unauthorized commercial exploitation of human creativity via AI.
Similarly, litigation in other Indian courts, particularly Delhi and Bombay High Court, involving famous performers, where AI has been used to replicate voices or likenesses ,suggests that judges are willing to extend performer and personality rights to prevent exploitation of a person’s unique identity, even when no traditional copyrighted work is directly implicated. These decisions underscore that while Indian courts may not yet have defined the status of AI compositions, they are attuned to the harms of unauthorized AI-based use of human artistic contributions.
III. Ownership and Authorship: The Heart of the AI-Music Debate
At the core of the AI-music legal debate in India is the question of authorship and ownership. The Copyright Act’s focus on human creativity leaves unresolved whether AI outputs can be protected at all. If an AI autonomously composes music without significant human creative input, it is unclear whether that composition qualifies as a “work” under Indian law. Scholars have noted that Indian jurisprudence does not currently recognize artificial intelligence as an author or creator, and no statutory arrangement explicitly addresses works created by autonomous AI systems.
Some argue that the person who provides the prompts or curates the output could be considered the “author.” Others contend that the developer or proprietor of the AI system should be treated as the owner. Yet others submit that purely machine generated outputs may simply fall into the public domain, since no human author can be definitively identified. Without judicial guidance or legislative reform, these competing theories remain unresolved in Indian law.
The training of AI models further complicates this landscape. Generative AI systems are typically trained on massive datasets, which often include copyrighted songs and performances. The absence of clear statutory exceptions for text-and-data mining or training activities as exist in some other jurisdictions raises the risk that the mere act of generating music could infringe the rights of original copyright holders if the output resembles pre-existing works. In India, unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a sound recording can violate the exclusive rights of the recording’s owner under Section 14.
IV. Imitation, Voice Cloning, and Performers’ Rights
AI’s ability to clone a singer’s voice or emulate stylistic nuances introduces another layer of legal complexity. Indian copyright law includes performer rights under Sections 38 and 38A, which grant performers control over the reproduction and distribution of their performances. If an AI system generates a song that mimics a singer’s voice nearly indistinguishably, questions arise about whether such imitation infringes the original performer’s rights. Even when copyright does not directly apply, courts have shown willingness to use personality rights doctrines to protect performers against unauthorized AI-generated use of their identity and voice.
Another concern involves resemblance to existing songs. Indian courts traditionally apply a “substantial similarity” test to determine infringement; if an allegedly infringing work bears significant similarity to a protected work, and if that similarity is not incidental, infringement may be found. AI outputs that inadvertently recreate melodic, harmonic, or rhythmic elements of copyrighted compositions could trigger infringement claims even without intent.
V. Policy and the Path Ahead
India has begun to engage with the broader policy implications of artificial intelligence and intellectual property. Recent governmental reviews of existing laws have acknowledged that generative AI poses significant challenges to current legal frameworks, prompting discussions about whether reforms are needed to clarify authorship, ownership, and liability in the AI context. Proposals such as the Artificial Intelligence (Ethics and Accountability) Bill, 2025 , which aims to establish norms for transparency, accountability, and oversight of AI systems , reflect this emerging policy focus, although specific copyright reform has not yet been enacted.
Globally, other jurisdictions are also grappling with similar issues. In the United States, legal and administrative developments have repeatedly emphasized that copyright protection requires human authorship: both the U.S. Copyright Office and U.S. courts have refused protection for works solely created by machines, although they may grant rights when a human’s creative contribution is sufficiently substantial. These international trends could influence Indian judicial reasoning as courts encounter AI-related disputes.
VI. Foreign Jurisdictions: Lessons for India
Across the globe, courts and policymakers are wrestling with the same fundamental issues that India now faces: Can AI-generated music be copyrighted, and if so, who owns it? While no jurisdiction has a fully settled regime yet, trends in key foreign systems offer valuable comparative insights.
In the United States, the current legal climate makes clear that copyright requires human authorship. The U.S. Copyright Office has repeatedly denied copyright registration for works created solely by AI, explaining that works lacking sufficient human creative control do not meet the statutory requirement of original “authorship.” The Office’s 2024–25 guidance states that while human contributions such as selection, editing, or arrangement may qualify for protection, the raw output of a machine, generated with no meaningful creative input, is not copyrightable.
This American position has been reinforced by federal courts. A 2025 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the principle that AI-generated works without human creative involvement cannot be copyrighted, reiterating that copyright exists to safeguard human creative expression. The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene in this matter in early 2026 effectively leaves this rule in place. Under U.S. doctrine, therefore, a song that is entirely generated by AI without substantial human input such as detailed composition decisions will generally fall into the public domain and cannot be exclusively owned by the AI developer, operator, or any other party.
The European Union and United Kingdom also stress human creativity, though their frameworks differ slightly. European and UK commentators emphasize that protected works must be the result of human intellectual effort and creative choice, even if AI tools assist in the process. This approach is rooted in both national law and international instruments like the Berne Convention, which repeatedly refers to an author , implicitly a human , though it does not explicitly spell this out. Under EU/UK standards, AI-generated music may attract copyright only if human creative choices materially shape the final output.
Beyond authorship, foreign jurisdictions are also exploring liability for unauthorized training data and deepfake voice replication. In the U.S., major record labels have filed lawsuits against AI music generators like Suno and Udio, claiming infringement due to the use of copyrighted recordings to train models , a battle that, while not yet fully resolved, highlights the industry’s insistence that AI developers must secure proper licenses before leveraging existing catalogues. Meanwhile, initiatives like the EU’s forthcoming EU Artificial Intelligence Act aim to introduce transparency obligations requiring disclosure of AI-generated content and its training sources, though final details are still debated.
Taken together, these foreign trends, though not uniform , offer instructive context. Most major jurisdictions currently converge on the idea that AI, as a machine, cannot be an author under traditional copyright doctrines, and that significant human creative involvement is essential for any claim to intellectual property rights. This global trajectory mirrors many concerns in Indian law and suggests how judges and policymakers might think through these issues as similar cases arise on Indian soil.
VII. Conclusion
India stands at a critical juncture as generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into creative workflows. The traditional copyright framework, rooted in human intellectual effort is strained by autonomous AI systems capable of producing original-appearing music. While early judicial interventions suggest sensitivity to protecting human performers against unauthorized AI exploitation, there is no settled legal position on the copyrightability of AI-generated music or on ownership of such works. Until Indian courts provide definitive guidance or the legislature enacts reform, the legal status of AI-composed music in India will remain uncertain.
FAQ
1. Can AI be considered the author of a musical work in India?
No. Current Indian law recognizes only human authors. AI itself cannot be listed as an author.
2. If I use AI to generate a song, do I automatically own the copyright?
Not necessarily. Ownership requires meaningful human creative input, not just providing prompts.
3. Could AI-generated music infringe existing copyrights?
Yes. If the output resembles pre-existing copyrighted works or the model was trained on copyrighted material without authorization, infringement is possible.
4. Is AI voice replication of a singer’s voice unlawful?
It may violate performers’ rights and personality rights, especially if done without consent.
5. Are there specific Indian laws governing AI-generated music?
No. Existing copyright law applies, but AI-specific legislation does not yet exist.
6. What should creators and developers do now?
Ensure substantial creative involvement, secure training data licenses, and consider contractual clarity on ownership.
Footnotes
- Indian copyright law’s concept of authorship and treatment of computer-generated works reflect enduring emphasis on human creativity. (taxguru.in)
- Indian courts have yet to decide a direct copyright case involving AI music, but judicial interventions on AI deepfakes demonstrate a willingness to protect personality and performance rights. (timesofindia.indiatimes.com)
- The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, includes provisions for computer-generated works, but their applicability to AI remains ambiguous. (taxguru.in)
- Unauthorized use of training data and resembling existing copyrighted works remain central infringement risks for AI-generated music in India. (iiprd.com)
