Artificial Intelligence (Chat GPT) and Copyright Laws in India

                                                                                                                        G.R. SRIKKANTH

1. Introduction

The internet and social media were inundated with articles about Artificial Intelligence bots, particularly Chat GPT. These writings are so intimidating about the bots which claimed to endanger the professional career of various professionals, including software engineers, content writers & lawyers etc., and the time will manifest about the certainty of these claims but these bots are worthy of our focus and attention. Before dealing with any legal issues that may arise, it is critical to understand the fundamentals of these bots.

The term Artificial intelligence (AI) first coined by American Computer scientist John McCarthy and AI is the field of study that describes the capability of machine learning like human and the ability to respond to certain behaviours.  Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the study of how to make machines behave intelligently, to solve problems and achieve goals in the kinds of complex situations in which humans require intelligence to achieve goals (John McCarthy).

AI is a branch of computer science that studies and develops intelligent machines and software. AI aims at making machines mimic human intelligence and behaviour in performing certain tasks, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making and translation between languages (IBM). AI automation encompasses technologies from machine learning and natural language processing to robotics as well as machine vision.

AI models are creating content, and it is difficult to tell the difference between content created by humans and content created by AI models. These models are trained on corpus of created works and content is derived from other sources (Gartner, 2023).  It is not clear whether any legal precedent exists to knowledge of the author about the ownership of the intellectual property rights of the content derived by these models.  This article is an attempt to make a study with respect to Indian copyright laws and the content created by AI bots. This article will explore how copyright law applies to AI-generated works, who owns the rights to such works and what penalties exist for infringement. It will also discuss the implications of AI on existing copyright law in India, as well as how lawyers can help protect their clients’ rights when it comes to AI-generated works.

1. The Law of Copyright in India

AI is becoming increasingly popular and with this popularity comes the need to protect intellectual property like copyright. The copyright laws in India are complex, and there is no easy way to understand how they apply. In this article, we'll explore the principles of originality under Indian copyright law 1957 (Act), as well as some of the exceptions for the use of copyrighted works.

Copyright is a form of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship. It is the legal right to reproduce, perform, or sell the work that one creates for profit. Copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 60 years after his or her death in India.

In India, copyright is created as soon as a work is generated, and no formalities are necessary to get copyright; registration of copyright is optional, not mandatory. Copyright is "right in rem," where the right excludes others from using the work in any manner for a definite period of years.

In India, to obtain protection for a work, it must be original and meet certain criteria. As per the Act, the author of the work is entitled to all rights pertaining to the originality of the work in various forms of intellectual property, including original literary work. Further, the first ownership of the copyright subsists with the author of the work (section 17), and in the absence of any agreement, the proprietor shall be deemed to be the first owner of the copyright. If a photograph is taken, a painting or portrait is drawn, or an engraving is made for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, that person shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.

Monkey selfie case

David Slater, a professional photographer, traveled to Indonesia in 2008 and voluntarily left the camera on a tripod to capture the best shots of monkeys. One of the monkeys operated the camera and took the photos and "monkey selfies." Slater later published the selfies taken by the monkeys in a magazine. In 2011, the images were uploaded to the Wikipedia website. Slater lodged a complaint with Wikipedia about his copyright infringement and demanded the removal of photos from the website; Wikipedia did not relent to Slater's demands, and legal disputes ensued between Slater and Wikipedia. Meanwhile, in 2015, an organization called Prevention for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued Mr. Slater in a California court on behalf of the monkey, claiming the copyright vests with the monkey. The court ruled that copyright does not extend to animals. PETA filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit, and the Court held that animals lack statutory standing under the Copyright Act (NARUTO vs. DAVID JOHN SLATER, 2017), and subsequently the matter was resolved by way of a settlement between the parties.

Copyright does not protect any idea or information; it only protects its expression in specific ways (e.g., through writing). The scope of copyright protection varies from country to country depending on international agreements and treaties between countries. 

1. Copyright as a right

 The rights of the author include:

• The right to reproduce or communicate their work in any medium;
• The right to adapt it for use by others;
• And finally, if they publish or distribute their own work without permission from another party (the owner), then they are infringing the rights of the owner.

Statutory exceptions for the use of copyrighted works

There are a number of statutory exceptions to copyright law in India (S 52). The following are some of the most common:

• Educational purposes - This exception allows for the reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works in accordance with certain conditions, including that it is used for educational purposes only.
• Research purposes - This exception covers situations where material is reproduced for research purposes and does not violate any other provisions of copyright law.
• Criticism, review and news reporting - If you're writing about a book or movie that's been published by someone else (and not your own), then you can use quotes from those works as long as they aren't used in an attempt to pass off your work as theirs or compete unfairly with them.
• Public interest - This allows anyone who has an interest in creating artworks or films based on existing ones without violating copyrights.
• Judicial proceedings – Judges presiding over court cases often need access to images taken during their trials; therefore this provision allows them access without violating any copyrights

1. The principle of originality under Indian copyright law

In the Indian copyright law, originality is a subjective concept. It means that you have to judge whether something is more than an ordinary imitation of another work or not. For example, if someone copies your song and changes the lyrics slightly to make it sound like his own version, he may be infringing upon your copyright because you cannot claim ownership over words which have been changed from their original form by another person.

However, it is important to note that while originality may be difficult to define in practice due to its subjective nature, there are certain criteria which can help determine whether something qualifies as being “new” or not:

Skill - In order for something be classified as original under Indian copyright laws (and therefore protected), there must be some level of skill involved in its creation; .otherwise, no one would be able take advantage of this protection when using someone else's work without permission from them first! This means that even if someone tries hard enough but fails miserably at creating something new out of thin air--they still wouldn't lose any rights under such circumstances since they didn't actually learn anything new during production process either way."

The Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Book Company & Ors vs D.B. Modak & Anr, dealt with the interpretation of provisions in the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. The main issue was whether the head-notes, or summary of legal decisions, published by the Eastern Book Company constituted "literary works" under the Copyright Act, and were therefore eligible for copyright protection.

The Supreme Court held that head-notes did indeed qualify as literary works, and were therefore protected by copyright. The Court emphasized the importance of giving broad and liberal interpretation to the provisions of the Copyright Act, in order to promote creativity and encourage the growth of knowledge. The Court also observed that head-notes played a crucial role in the dissemination of legal knowledge, and therefore needed to be protected.

In conclusion, the Eastern Book Company & Ors vs D.B. Modak & Anr case clarified the status of head-notes as literary works under the Indian Copyright Act, and affirmed the principle of broad interpretation of the provisions of the Act to promote creativity and the growth of knowledge

1. Originality and autonomous creativity under Indian copyright law

The principle of originality under Indian copyright law is that a work must be original and not merely a copy or parody. This means that the content produced by AI driven content cannot be considered as original. Since this would mean that all AI driven content would be infringing on someone else’s copyrights, it is important for companies that are working on AI driven content to understand how their work is being protected under international copyright laws so they can ensure its compliance with these laws before going live with their product/service offering.

Arduous task of delimiting originality from skill and labour

• The task is arduous because it is not clear what constitutes originality.
• The task is arduous because there is no clear principle that can be applied to determine originality.
• The task is arduous because there are no clear guidelines on how to determine originality.

Doctrine of Sweat of the Brow

The Doctrine of Sweat of the Brow relies on the skill and hard labour of the author and it does not emphasis on originality or creativity of the work. In UK the courts held that the work product shall not be copied from the other work but it has to be the labour of the author and novelty or originality is almost redundant.  A person can claim exclusive right on the work created irrespective of originality, novelty and creativity, like compilation of records and creation of databases etc as long as the work is created from the own labour of the person and not copied from other sources.

1. Conqueror or Creator -  Is AI driven content infringement of copyright?

AI bots are not original, autonomous and creative. They do not have a mind of their own and neither does it have a soul or heart. AI bots are just computers that follow instructions from humans. In other words, the only thing that can be said about them is that they are programmed to perform certain tasks such as answering questions or making decisions based on input received from you (the human user).

Who will own the rights to the works generated by Artificial Intelligence?

The content created by these AI models like ChatGPT is from the numerous corpuses of literary and other works and it is derived from the works of other authors.  If the content derived from the idea of the existing works then there is no infringement of any copyright.  However, it is not clear who owns the content developed or created, whether it is the OPEN AI or the input provider or both. 

Generally speaking, It is likely that the user retains ownership of any copyright in any material they submit, though there may be certain exceptions depending on the specific terms and conditions. Therefore, it is important for users to read these carefully before submitting any materials to an AI writing tool.

1. Conclusion

AI is utterly disrupting human work, life and relationship and it will also changes the way we see ourselves and it will transform economies and societies on larger scale.

The introduction of AI created text has brought with it the need to consider copyright laws. With the rise of Chat Gpt, which can create content from scratch in now time. This means that the stake holders will have to consider the implications of this technology when it comes to copyright infringement. At the same time, there are many challenges that come with AI created text and copyright laws in India such as how to enforce these laws and how to protect creators from plagiarism. The use of AI by ChatGpt has led to copyright infringement accusations. Open AI  states that it will make attempt to protect its users from infringing content and generate profit for original creators. But the lack of clarity around the status of AI created text creates questions about the legality of this platform as well as how to enforce copyright laws in India. 

As we have seen, the Indian copyright law has been shaped by history and culture. It has served to protect a vast range of artistic creativity and to encourage innovation. The law of copyright is not static and is constantly evolving. It has to be dynamic to keep pace with the changing times, considering that technology comes up with new ways of doing things every day. The law of copyright should also be flexible enough to accommodate new technologies and processes that do not require a lot of legal intervention (or at least not much).

However, the law must now be updated with an eye toward contemporary developments in technology and society considering the increase of use of AI and its derivatives, as they pose a risk of infringement.  Finally, the user should keep in mind Open AI's disclaimer that it may occasionally generate incorrect or misleading information, as well as offensive or biased content, and that it is not intended to provide advice. The user has to exercise his own discretion before putting the content to use.

This article is written by me personally and not by any Artificial Intelligence language model. 

Note:- Image copyright owned by open.ai

Bibliography

Eastern Book Company & Ors vs D.B. Modak & Anr, Appeal (civil) 6472 of 2004 (The Supreme Court of India 12 12, 2007).

Gartner. (2023). Gartner. Retrieved January 25, 2023, from https://www.gartner.com/: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-12-08-why-is-chatgpt-making-waves-in-the-ai-market

IBM. (n.d.). What is artificial intelligence (AI)? Retrieved January 26, 2023, from https://www.ibm.com/: https://www.ibm.com/in-en/topics/artificial-intelligence

McCarthy, J. (1996). Defending AI Research. California: CSLI Publication.

NARUTO vs DAVID JOHN SLATER, No. 16-15469 (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 12, 2017).

Wills, Y. (2019). Artifical Intelligence - Modern magic or Dangerous Future. London: Icon.