The artistic and creative sectors have seen a significant transformation due to the lightning-fast advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology[1]. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have shown a growing ability to produce creative material, including music, art, literature, designs, and other forms of creative expression, with heightened levels of complexity and sophistication[2]. Although these technological improvements hold great potential for progress and increased effectiveness, they also give rise to intricate legal issues pertaining to copyright ownership, design protection, trademark infringement, and patentability[3]. The primary objective of this research paper is to examine the ramifications of artificial intelligence (AI) within the creative sectors and investigate various legal remedies that might effectively safeguard the rights of artists while also fostering an environment conducive to innovation.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

• Explore the effects of AI on copyright law in the creative industries, including issues in identifying ownership and authorship of AI-generated works, and suggest ways to preserve artists’ rights and fairly recognize AI developers.
• Assess the effects of AI-generated designs on design protection rules, identify possible barriers to awarding intellectual property rights, and propose changes to accommodate AI-driven creativity.
• Examine the hazards of trademark infringement from AI-generated material, including the challenges of identifying culpability and offering ways to improve brand protection and prevent AI systems from using trademarks.
• Examine the patentability requirements for AI advancements in the creative sectors, assess if current patent laws can accommodate AI-generated inventions, and provide legal frameworks to encourage innovation while safeguarding inventors’ rights.
• Assess the legal consequences of AI-generated material under media laws, including defamation, privacy, and intellectual property, and advise on setting standards and regulations for its usage and distribution.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

• Examine research publications, legal texts, and judicial precedents on artificial intelligence in creative industries to get a comprehensive understanding.
• Analyze and compare intellectual property laws in India and other countries to identify differences, similarities, and best practices for AI-generated content. This article uses case studies and real-world examples of AI-generated content in the creative industries to explain legal issues and provide solutions.
• Examine Indian laws, including Copyright, Designs, Trademarks, Patents, Trade Secrets, and media regulations, to assess their relevance and restrictions in AI-generated innovation.

QUESTIONS ANSWERED THROUGH RESEARCH

• The identification of copyright ownership for AI-generated works poses significant issues. In this setting, safeguarding the rights of artists becomes crucial.
• In what ways may the scope of design protection be expanded to include designs created by artificial intelligence (AI), and what are the possible challenges that may impede such efforts?
• This inquiry pertains to the potential hazards associated with trademark infringement arising from the utilization of AI-generated material, as well as the strategies that brand proprietors might use to alleviate these dangers.
• What are the criteria for determining the patentability of artificial intelligence (AI) developments, and how do these criteria correspond to the provisions outlined in current patent laws?
• The influence of AI-generated material on fair use concerns and the necessary adjustments to fair use rules to accommodate AI-created works are topics of interest.

WHAT IS AI?

Al is an algorithmic system that uses data-driven methodologies to forecast, categorize, or generate outcomes for implementation across many sectors and contexts. Artificial intelligence (AI) may be categorized into several components: (1) the algorithm responsible for executing computational tasks, (2) the training methods and dataset that contribute to the “intelligence” of AI, and (3) the application that facilitates its practical implementation in real-world scenarios.[4]

WHAT IS CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF INVOLVEMENT OF AI?

“Dabus” and AI-Generated Inventions: The 2020 example of “Dabus” the AI system that designed a food container with a blinking light was intriguing. The inventor of Dabus, Dr. Stephen Thaler, tried to patent his innovations in the US, EPO, and UKIPO. These patent applications raised questions about whether AI-generated innovations could be patented and who should be the inventor[5]. The patent authorities rejected these applications, emphasising that only people can innovate. Indian Controller General of Patents objected to AI-generated innovation (DABUS) patent application 202017019068. These instances showed the difficulties of attributing inventorship to AI and the necessity to redefine inventorship for AI-generated innovations. Here are some other instances:

• The Indian National Film Development Corporation (NFDC) is exploring the use of AI in screenplay and scenario generation. This highlights the necessity for explicit copyright ownership and protection for AI-created creative works.
• AI algorithms are being utilized in fashion to create new clothing designs and patterns. This raises questions about design protection and whether AI-generated designs may be registered under design law[6].
• The growing popularity of AI-generated music in India has raised concerns about copyright ownership and the role of AI engineers and musicians in the creative process.
• The European Patent Office (EPO) patented an AI-created work in a key judgement. This ruling has sparked debates in India and elsewhere over AI-derived innovation patentability.
• The advent of AI-generated deepfake videos has raised concerns about the misuse of AI technology and the challenges of protecting copyright and trademark rights when AI systems replicate prior content.

HOW ARE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IMPACTED BY THE ADVENT OF AI?

AI has complexly altered IP. AI-generated material blurs authorship and ownership, challenging copyright restrictions. The patentability of algorithms and AI innovations is a serious topic. AI uncovering commercial secrets in vast datasets raises worries. The ownership and distribution of AI model training data is problematic. AI increases IP infringement detection in enforcement. Integrating AI-driven innovation poses ethical and fair use challenges. To handle the complex relationship between artificial intelligence and intellectual property, legal frameworks and standards must be rethought in this changing setting.

The subsequent portion of this article examines the essential factors to be taken into account for each category of intellectual property rights, as described on a global scale[7]. However, despite the ongoing global discourse around the function and extent of intellectual property and legal issues in relation to safeguarding the works of artificial intelligence, a unified strategy has yet to emerge and may potentially remain elusive.

AI IN PATENT- INVENTORSHIP AND OWNERSHIP ISSUES

A patent gives innovators the legal right to restrict others from producing, using, or commercializing their innovation in exchange for a patent application. The patent system aims to promote technological innovation, which is typically idealized in stories about an individual or family addressing a problem with a unique solution that becomes commercially viable and gives them economic independence.  The provision of exclusive rights via patents may function as a significant motivator for research and development activities, regardless of whether they are conducted by private entities, public institutions, government agencies, or through collaborative efforts involving several disciplines[8]. What is the current stance of patent law towards the promotion of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, considering the increasing prominence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the era of digitalization?
In terms of the development and custody of patentable inventions, Al applications present difficulties for IP policymakers[9]. Issues emerge when an artificial intelligence (AI) system autonomously develops a novel invention[10], leading to the issue of the rightful recipient of patent protection in such a situation[11].

In the United Kingdom, individuals may be eligible for patent protection provided they possess the legal entitlement to a novel invention that demonstrates inventiveness, industrial applicability, and does not fall within the scope of exclusions from patentability. The European Patent Convention (“EPC”)[12] also establishes comparable standards for patent protection applications.

In the context of India, patent protection is not extended to mathematical models and algorithms unless they demonstrate a technical impact or contribution. As to Section 3(k) of the Indian Patent Act, mathematical and commercial models, as well as computer software, are not eligible for patent protection in their own right. The issue of patentability surrounding advancements driven by artificial intelligence (AI) gives rise to apprehensions pertaining to the creativity, lack of obviousness, and level of human involvement in AI-generated inventions. The Patent Act of 1970 in India lacks clear provisions regarding AI-generated innovations. Consequently, it becomes imperative to conduct a comparative examination with nations like China, where patents for AI-generated inventions have been granted, in order to ascertain the most suitable course of action for India.

AI IN COPYRIGHT AND SUBSEQUENT ISSUES

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in copyright has changed content generation and delivery, with complex legal ramifications, especially in India[13]. AI-generated creations challenge originality and creativity, raising copyright ownership and protection concerns[14]. The 1957 Indian Copyright Act provides a framework for studying AI issues, while not being designed for this purpose.

The Copyright Act in India acknowledges human-authored works, raising questions about AI-generated material. AI’s creative contributions aren’t recognized under the Act’s author definition. AI technology involves programmers, data providers, and users, raising ownership ambiguity. In contrast, the U.S. Copyright Office[15] has said that AI-generated content is not protected by copyright. The review of overseas methods emphasizes India’s need for an AI innovation ownership framework.

In addition to the challenges discussed before, artificial intelligence’s potential to replicate human creativity poses problems regarding originality and copyright protection. Human creation requires uniqueness, whereas AI replicates patterns and trends using massive databases. AI-generated artwork may be original, redefining human creativity.

The development of AI-generated material challenges fair usage. The Indian and worldwide idea of “fair dealing” allows limited copyrighted content usage without authorization. Fair use standards must be reassessed for AI-generated material, which is created without human intervention[16].

India’s problems make us think about other nations’ lessons. The EU’s Digital Single Market Directive shows a proactive approach to adjusting copyright regulations to AI-generated material. Canada’s “fair dealing” laws can support AI advances.

To solve AI-generated material issues, India should amend its Copyright Act. This would clarify ownership, authorship, and protection laws. Recognizing AI as a creative tool and human engineers’ contributions creates a balanced framework. Additionally, developing rules for judging the authenticity of AI-generated inventions and applying fair use concepts to the AI setting might improve justice and equality in their treatment.

AI IN THE REALM OF TRADE SECRETS

The rapid use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology across several industries has had many complex legal repercussions, particularly in trade secrets, which are important in India. The quick data processing and analytical capabilities of AI raise concerns about trade secret protection. The 2016 Trade Secrets Act[17] governs business data security in India. This law does not address AI-related issues. This highlights the need to examine liability frameworks in cases where artificial intelligence unintentionally accesses trade secrets, implement secure AI deployment practices, and harmonies India’s trade secret protection with global norms, taking global issues into account. A comparison of the US and EU may help alleviate trade secret problems in artificial intelligence. This study may also help design comprehensive trade secret protection laws in India’s fast-changing technology environment.

LEGAL IMPLICATION OF INTERTWINNING OF AI AND DESIGNS

The convergence of AI and design law has legal ramifications, especially in India. The identification, protection, and ownership of AI-created designs under India’s design rules are becoming more significant. The fast advancement of AI-generated designs threatens the Designs Act of 2000, which protects human-created designs. The complicated relationship between artificial intelligence-driven design innovation and legal norms is outside the legal framework.

A strong creative culture in India and growing usage of artificial intelligence (AI) generates issues about categorizing and protecting machine-created creations. AI-generated designs provide new obstacles. Identifying human participation in design development, rating uniqueness without human inspiration, and proving authorship when computers produce innovation are the issues.

International colleagues face comparable issues. Legal bodies like the EU are struggling to classify non-human producers and allocate rights to AI-created works. Comparative study shows that India’s design laws need to be updated to account for artificial intelligence’s growing role in design. Safeguards and the growing role of AI in design development must be balanced.

Creating a legal framework requires several considerations. First, it is important to establish criteria for determining originality in AI-generated designs, acknowledging that the creative process may not always rely on traditional human inspiration. Legal recognition of AI-generated designs requires ownership procedures. Should AI inventors have human rights? Should AI developers determine and enforce rights? Should protection encourage innovation and ethics?

AI’s worldwide participation in design development necessitates aligning Indian design laws with global standards. The European Union’s limited protection of AI-generated output while protecting writers’ rights may improve India’s legal system.

The legal ramifications of AI in design law are significant. Thus, India’s framework must be properly assessed to handle the complex interaction between AI-driven breakthroughs and legal principles. Proactive strategies include using AI as a creative tool, reassessing originality standards, identifying authorship, and embracing global best practices[18]. This technique encourages innovation while protecting artists’ rights, acknowledging AI developers, and serving the public. India must update its design guidelines to provide a balanced and progressive legal framework in the fast-developing digital world.

ADVENT OF AI IN TRADEMARKS

The convergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and trademark law presents complex legal dynamics, especially within the Indian setting. The growing use of AI technology in automated trademark enforcement and infringement detection systems raises apprehensions over the precision of AI algorithms in recognizing probable trademark breaches and the possibility for unlawful enforcement measures[19]. Trademark protection in India is regulated by the Trade Marks Act of 1999. However, this legislation does not have specific measures that directly tackle the issues arising from AI-generated material. These problems have a worldwide impact, since AI-driven systems give rise to comparable inquiries about the optimal equilibrium between effective enforcement and safeguarding lawful trademark utilization. A comparative study conducted with countries such as the United States demonstrates the existence of diverse methods towards the enforcement of AI-driven trademark protection. The need of modifying trademark rules to effectively address the changing dynamics of artificial intelligence, while also guaranteeing equitable and appropriate enforcement, assumes paramount importance. India must strategically manage this complex situation by integrating AI-powered trademark protection systems with current legal frameworks[20], in order to establish a responsible and efficient trademark enforcement system that upholds user rights and prevents unwarranted legal repercussions.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF AI-GENERATED CONTENT:

AI-generated content has major legal implications for fair use. In circumstances when artificial intelligence systems create creative works that might challenge fair use, artist and consumer rights must be carefully considered[21]. Comparisons with Canada, which has fair dealing laws that encompass AI, may guide India’s approach.

• It is recommended to revise the existing copyright laws in India in order to expressly include provisions that pertain to the fair use of work created by artificial intelligence (AI). This revision should take into account transformative applications of such content as well as the concept of non-human authorship.
• Develop a comprehensive fair use framework that fosters the development of innovation while concurrently upholding the rights of original artists.
• Advocate for the implementation of fair use regulations that include artificial intelligence (AI) and promote inclusivity, therefore fostering innovation and creativity within the context of the digital era.

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

In the rapidly changing world of technology-based innovation, incorporating AI into intellectual property law has brought complex legal problems. Countries must update their legal frameworks to tackle copyright, trade secrets, and design law issues as AI is used more in creative industries. The legal ramifications in India are unique and need investigation.

AI integration into copyright, trade secrets, and design law involves complicated rights, duties, and obstacles. The role of AI in creativity and the rights of AI developers and human artists pose copyright authorship and ownership problems[22]. Trade secrets must mix AI-driven analysis with data security to avoid unwanted access. Design law concerns around originality, authorship, and protection of AI-generated designs while fostering innovation are growing as AI and design production become more integrated.

These areas concentrate on India’s legal system. The Copyright Act of 1957[23], Trade Secrets Act of 2016[24], and Designs Act of 2000[25] struggle to handle AI’s complex effects. International analogies show Indian legal system issues. India may learn from the EU and US approaches to AI.

The development of artificial intelligence requires a multifaceted legal framework. Recognizing AI’s contributions while protecting human creativity, creators’ rights, and innovation is difficult. Technological development and legal principles need legislative modifications. Here are several recommendations:

• India should establish a regulatory agency or task force to address legal challenges in creative areas using AI. This organization can design regulations and norms with industry stakeholders, legal experts, and AI developers.
• Why The Indian government should promote ethical and responsible AI practices while supporting innovative AI research and development. Funding programs, innovation awards, and AI ethical rules might encourage AI-driven creativity.
• India should work with other governments to create global standards and best practices for tackling legal issues linked to artificial intelligence (AI) in the creative industries.
• Implement education and awareness campaigns to inform producers, consumers, and legal practitioners on the legal implications of AI-generated material. Workshops, webinars, and training may improve AI IP knowledge.
• Prioritize monitoring and updating intellectual property laws to stay up with AI technology breakthroughs. In response to AI-driven creative practices, the legal framework must be reviewed and updated regularly.

This research concludes that AI-driven creatives need adaptable legal frameworks that accommodate technical advances and legal norms. India and the world must embrace innovation and legal development as they assess AI’s effects. This method is necessary for integrating creativity, technology, and legislation in the future.

---

[1] Daryl Lim, AI & IP: Innovation & Creativity in an Age of Accelerated Change, 52 AKRON L. REV. 813 (2018).

[2] Innovation and Intellectual Property, WIPO, https://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/2017/innovationand_ intellectual_property.html (last accessed Feb. 24, 2022).

[3] Mark A. Prinsley , Oliver Yaros, Ulrich Worm & Christoph J. Crutzen, The Rise of AI and WIPO Consultation on Intellectual Property Issues, 3 THE JOURNAL oF Robotics, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE & LAW (Fastcase) 213 (2020).

[4] Aastha Uppal, Drafting AI Patents: Challenges and Solutions, IPWatchdog (Aug. 21, 2021), https://www.ipwatchdog. com/2021/08/21/drafting-ai-patents-challenges-solutions/id=136929/.

[5] Brian S. Haney, AI Patents: A Data Driven Approach, 19 CHI.-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. 407 (2020).

[6] Lee, H.-K. (2022). Rethinking creativity: creative industries, AI and everyday creativity. Media, Culture & Society, 44(3), 601–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437221077009.

[7] Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: IP and the 4.0 Industry, IPK(EY LATIN AMERICA, https://ipkey.eu/ en/latin-america/activities/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-ip-and-40-industry (last accessed on Sept. 13, 2021).

[8] Christian E. Mammen & Carrie Richey, AI and IP: Are Creativity and Inventorship Inherently Human Activities?, 14 FIU L. REV. 275 (2020).

[9] Lynn Lazaro, India: Artificial Intelligence in the World of IP, MONDAQ (Feb. 10, 2020), https://www.mondaq.com/ india/patent/892134/artificial-intelligence-in-the-world-of-ip.

[10] Rachel Ackerman, Is the World Ready to Accept Artificial Intelligence as an Inventor?, 72 DEPAUL L. REV. 835 (2023).

[11] AI and IP: a Tale of Two Acronyms, in Artificial Intelligence and the Law , 207-240

[12] European Patent Convention, Oct. 5, 1973, European Patent Office, 1063 U.N.T.S. 13.

[13] India, IP Developments and TRIPs, 10 INTELL. PROP. L. & POL’y 971 (2008).

[14] AI and Copyright Law: The European Perspective, in The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence: Global Perspectives on Law and Ethics , 257-270

[15] Margot E. Kaminski, Authorship, Disrupted: AI Authors in Copyright and First Amendment Law, 51 U.C.D. L. REV. 589 (2017).

[16] Chander M. Lall, India Spruces up Its IP Regime and Its Enforcement, 2 J. WORLD INTELL. PROP. 961 (1999).

[17] Trade Secret Act, 2000

[18] JOHN S. GERO, AI EDAM at 20: Artificial intelligence in designing, 21 AI EDAM , 17-18 (2007)

[19] Michael Grynberg, AI and the ‘Death of Trademark’, 108 KY. L.J. 199 (2019).

[20] Sonia K. Katyal & Aniket Kesari, Trademark Search, Artificial Intelligence, and the Role of the Private Sector, 35 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 501 (2020).

[21] Scott J. Shackelford & Rachel Dockery, Governing AI, 30 CORNELL J. L. & PUB. POL’y 279 (2020).

[22] Wenqing Zhao, AI Art, Machine Authorship, and Copyright Laws, 12 AM. U. INTELL. PROP. BRIEF 1 (2020).

[23] The Copyright Act, 1957

[24] Supra 17

[25] The Designs Act, 2000

---

Author: Bhavya Chhabra

---