is a natural person, a human being, and not an artificial person; Central Board of Secondary Education is not a natural person and it would be entitled to claim copyright in the examination papers only if it establishes and proves that it has engaged persons specifically for purposes of preparation of compilation, known as question papers, with a contract that copyright therein will vest in Central Board of Secondary Education.
work is generated by AI without any human input, then in such cases, the authorship may vest with the author of the AI who has developed the program creating the AI.
whereas in case of work created by the AI without any human interference, the ownership may be claimed by the copyright owner of the AI, i.e. who holds copyright over the AI software.
need to understand that such creation by AI will be based on the contents or parameter or the extent of information to which the software program allows it to explore.
The term "original work" is not defined in the Act, however, while deciding the originality the Court usually check the following parameters:
Under the Copyright Act 1957, literary work recognizes compilations and since the AI is dependent on the existing information and the exposure of the programming, the work so created may qualify as compilation and therefore protectable as copyright.
However, alternate arguments state that the work so generated is mere collection without any skill and judgment.
Analysing the above provision it can easily be said that copyright in a work can only be infringed by a "person". Since the legal status of the AI is still not classified as a legal entity, therefore, any infringement caused by AI will become a serious issue.
Therefore, in case of AI, the transfer of ownership will be difficult to establish as the AI cannot execute or authorize its creator or any other person, to become the owner of the work.
Therefore, if an AI is recognized as an author of the work then these rights may become redundant, as AI may not be able to ascertain whether any act has affected the honour or reputation of the original work.
Therefore, where the AI is author of the work, the question of who will determine the royalty, how will the royalty be disbursed to AI, where the AI is able to fix the amount of royalty then whether the amount must be determined on reasonability.
However, such negative work by AI may cause more harm, and without any accountability to regulate the work of AI, it will be difficult to give acceptance of authorship in favour of AI.
are not sufficiently equipped to discuss the rights of AI and its creation
Copyright Act 1957 clearly classifies the author to be a person and unless the AI are given a legal status to this effect
to include AI related works as a separate category or to give AI recognition to be an author.
by virtue of its programming and parameter on which such AI actually compiles and creates the work, may be considered as use of skill and judgment and therefore, in such cases can be classified as original work.