Copyright for AI art? Delhi HC sets 8-week deadline to decide on Stephen Thaler's plea

The Delhi High Court on Thursday instructed the Copyright Office to decide within eight weeks on an application seeking copyright protection for an artwork generated by American AI researcher Stephen Thaler using artificial intelligence, BarandBench reported.

The direction was issued in a petition filed by Thaler, who is seeking copyright recognition for an artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”, which he claims was created independently by his AI system DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience).

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of the petition after observing that the Copyright Office has fixed a hearing in the case for 27 April, and instructed the Registrar of Copyrights to wrap up the proceedings swiftly, ideally within eight weeks from that date.

The artwork at the centre of the case, “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”, is described as a surreal image generated entirely by a machine without human authorship.

What did US AI researcher Thaler say?

Stephen Thaler has asserted that the piece was created independently by his AI system, DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), which is designed to replicate creative processes and generate original content.

Thaler submitted his copyright application in 2022, but it has remained undecided for nearly four years. Through his petition, he has sought directions for authorities to process and rule on the application in accordance with the law.

During the examination of the application, objections were put forward on the basis that only a natural person can be recognised as an author. Stephen Thaler has countered this by arguing that AI-generated creations fall within the scope of “computer-generated works,” where authorship can be attributed to the individual who initiates or enables the creation of the work, the report noted.

Thaler has been a prominent figure globally in testing the limits of intellectual property law in relation to artificial intelligence. He has filed similar applications in multiple jurisdictions seeking recognition of AI systems as inventors or authors.

However, courts and patent authorities in regions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union have consistently rejected these claims, maintaining that current legal frameworks only recognise natural persons in such roles. These rulings have fuelled ongoing debate about whether intellectual property laws should evolve to address the increasing role of generative AI in creative and inventive fields.

The matter before the Delhi High Court is reportedly among the first in India to squarely address the question of copyright protection for AI-generated works. Its decision could have far-reaching consequences for how Indian law interprets authorship, ownership, and registration of AI-created content, especially as generative AI tools become more widespread across industries.

The case may also shape broader policy discussions on modernising intellectual property laws to keep pace with emerging technologies and could serve as an important precedent for future disputes involving AI-generated works in India.

According to the report, the case highlights a wider legal question, whether works created by artificial intelligence can be granted protection under the Copyright Act, 1957. Although the law acknowledges “computer-generated works,” it does not clearly address authorship by non-human creators, resulting in ambiguity in interpretation.

It also underscores a fundamental issue: whether AI-generated content can be recognised within India’s copyright system, which has traditionally assigned authorship only to human creators.