An artificial intelligence (AI) system cannot be recognised as an author under the Copyright Act, 1957, the Copyright Office has ruled while rejecting an application that named the AI system DABUS as the author of an artwork.
However, Registrar of Copyrights Dr. Unnat P Pandit clarified that a work generated through AI or computational processes could satisfy the originality requirement under copyright law.
The ruling came on an application filed by American computer scientist Stephen L Thaler for registration of copyright in an artwork titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise. The application identified the Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS) as the author and Thaler as the copyright owner.
The Copyright Office concluded that Thaler, rather than DABUS, was the person who caused the artwork to be created within the meaning of Section 2(d)(vi) of the Act.
“DABUS is not a natural or juristic person recognised in law and cannot be entered as author under Section 2(d)(vi),” the Registrar held.
Section 2(d)(vi) provides that the author of a computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is “the person who causes the work to be created”.
According to Thaler, DABUS autonomously generated the artwork after being trained using photographs taken by him, curated thesaurus entries and English sentences. He argued that while he designed and configured the system, DABUS performed the core generative process and produced the final visual expression without real-time human intervention or a text prompt.
The Copyright Office rejected the argument that the entity performing the final computational step must consequently be treated as the author. It noted that DABUS had not designed its architecture, selected its training methodology or supplied its inputs independently. All these processes were undertaken by Thaler.
“Autonomy in execution is not synonymous with conception of a work,” the Registrar observed.
The order added that copyright law recognises the “mastermind” behind a work rather than the autonomy of the tool used to produce it. Registrar held,
“The law recognizes the mastermind behind the creation of the work, not the autonomy of the tool through which that creation is implemented.”
The Copyright Office also rejected the analogy drawn between DABUS and companies or Hindu idols, which may be treated as juristic persons in law. DABUS had no statutory recognition, proprietary status, civil personality or legal capacity independent of its creator, the order said.
However, the Registrar accepted that the artwork crossed the limited threshold of originality under Section 13 of the Copyright Act. The composition was not shown to reproduce any identified pre-existing work and contained a particular arrangement of colours, visual forms, tonal variations and spatial elements.
“The fact that the work was generated through algorithmic or computational processes cannot, by itself, render the resulting expression unoriginal,” the order stated.
The Registrar explained that originality and authorship involved separate inquiries. While a computer-generated work could possess sufficient independent creative expression, its legal authorship must still be attributed to a person recognised by law.
The application was ultimately rejected because Thaler continued to name DABUS as the author despite being offered an opportunity to amend the application. Thaler had alternatively suggested that he could be named as author if DABUS was officially acknowledged as the technological generator. The Registrar declined to treat this conditional request as an amendment.
The Copyright Office also found the claim identifying DABUS as author and Thaler as owner inconsistent with Sections 17 to 19 of the Act. Since DABUS had no legal personality, it could neither own nor assign copyright to Thaler.
The order clarified that the rejection would not prevent Thaler from pursuing remedies based on corrected particulars identifying the legally recognised author and explaining the basis of ownership.
Senior Advocate Rajeshwari Hariharan assisted the Copyright Office as amicus curiae.
Thaler was represented by advocates Ankit Sahni, Chirag Ahluwalia, Aman Sinha and Goldie Dhama.
Ryan Abbot from Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan, LLP also represented Thaler.