India’s government is reviewing its Copyright Act 1957 in response to generative artificial intelligence’s impact on creative industries, amid legal challenges and calls for clearer regulation of AI training practices.
The rapid ascent of generative artificial intelligence has forced a reappraisal of copyright law in India, with the central government now explicitly examining whether the Copyright Act, 1957 remains fit for purpose in an era when machines ingest and repurpose vast stores of human expression. According to a written reply in Parliament by Union Minister of State for Commerce and Industry Jitin Prasada, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has convened an eight‑member expert committee, established on April 28, 2025, and has published Part 1 of a working paper on the use of copyrighted content in AI training, opening it for stakeholder feedback. [1][2]
The committee’s remit, as set out by the government, includes analysing legal and policy challenges arising from AI’s use within the copyright framework, assessing whether existing statutory provisions are adequate, and recommending changes where necessary. The government has signalled that these findings will feed into a forthcoming white paper that could guide legislative or administrative responses. [1][2]
At the heart of the debate is the training of AI models on copyrighted material scraped from the internet and other sources. Industry submissions to the government have urged clarification of the legality of such practices, including possible amendments to the Copyright Act and clearer definitions of “fair dealing,” while calling for public consultation on governance issues including transparency and deepfakes. According to the industry, legal certainty is essential to promote adoption and investment in AI. [3]
Creators and rights‑holders say the current state of play amounts to uncompensated appropriation of creative labour. Artists, journalists, photographers, publishers and their representative organisations have argued that generative AI companies are free‑riding on decades of human creativity by using copyrighted works as raw material without licensing or remuneration; this backlash is manifesting in litigation and collective bargaining efforts worldwide. The Indian context is already seeing related legal action, most notably a copyright suit by ANI Media against OpenAI alleging unauthorised use of news content to train ChatGPT. [1][3][6]
That litigation has also exposed jurisdictional and cross‑border complications. OpenAI has responded in Indian proceedings by arguing that its model training and data storage occurred outside India and therefore fall beyond the territorial reach of the Indian Copyright Act; it has further said it cannot delete training data where it is bound by foreign legal or operational constraints. These positions raise acute questions for enforcement if training datasets are dispersed and operations are global. [4][5][6]
A second, equally fraught issue is whether outputs generated by AI can attract copyright protection at all. Traditional Indian doctrine links originality to human skill, labour and judgment; if an algorithm merely recombines existing works, courts and policymakers will have to decide whether such outputs qualify as “original” or belong to the public domain. Conversely, denying protection could chill commercial deployment by removing exclusivity for businesses that invest in machine‑generated content. The hybrid reality, where human prompting, selection and editing intermix with automated generation, complicates any bright‑line test. [1]
The problem stretches beyond text to images, music and video. Image‑generation models that produce work “in the style of” living or deceased artists, and music systems that emulate genres or performers, test the boundary between lawful influence and actionable imitation. In India’s burgeoning NFT and digital‑art ecosystems these questions have immediate market consequences; unclear ownership rules risk disputes over authenticity, monetisation and the distribution of value between human creators and platform or model owners. [1]
Policy options under consideration range from calibrated exceptions for model training, to collective licensing mechanisms, to transparency and provenance obligations for AI developers, and potentially to novel rights tailored for AI‑generated works. Any framework will need to balance protection for authors, journalists and artists against regulatory burdens that could concentrate AI capabilities in a handful of deep‑pocketed firms. DPIIT’s expert committee and the forthcoming white paper will be pivotal in translating these trade‑offs into concrete proposals. [1][2][3]
For now, India’s legal system and market participants are operating in a period of uncertainty that is playing out in courts, regulator consultations and industry submissions. The outcome will shape not only how value is allocated between humans and machines in India’s creative industries, but may also influence international approaches to AI and copyright governance in a globally interconnected digital economy. [1][3][4][6]
##Reference Map:
- [1] (India Legal Live) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7, Paragraph 8, Paragraph 9
- [2] (Business Standard) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 8
- [3] (Economic Times) – Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 8, Paragraph 9
- [4] (Firstpost) – Paragraph 5, Paragraph 9
- [5] (Hindustan Times) – Paragraph 5
- [6] (The IP Press) – Paragraph 4, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 9
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative is current, with the article dated December 20, 2025. The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) established an eight-member expert committee on April 28, 2025, to examine the implications of generative AI on copyright law. ([medianama.com](https://www.medianama.com/2025/05/223-india-ai-copyright-law-committee/?utm_source=openai)) The committee has released Part 1 of a working paper focusing on the use of copyrighted content in AI training, inviting stakeholder feedback. ([business-standard.com](https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/centre-copyright-act-1957-review-generative-content-ai-ownership-lok-sabha-125121700700_1.html?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
The article does not contain direct quotes, indicating original content.
Source reliability
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative originates from India Legal Live, a publication that provides legal news and analysis. While it is a specialised outlet, it is not as widely recognised as major international media. The article cites reputable sources, including official government communications and established news outlets.
Plausability check
Score:
9
Notes:
The claims are plausible and align with recent developments in AI and copyright law in India. The establishment of the DPIIT committee and the release of the working paper are verifiable events. The article accurately reflects ongoing legal actions, such as ANI Media’s lawsuit against OpenAI for alleged unauthorized use of its content. ([theippress.com](https://www.theippress.com/2025/04/30/delhi-high-court-considers-copyright-implications-of-chatgpts-ai-training-in-ani-v-openai/?utm_source=openai))
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is current, original, and supported by verifiable sources. It accurately reflects recent developments in AI and copyright law in India, including the establishment of the DPIIT committee and ongoing legal actions. The absence of direct quotes and the use of reputable sources further enhance its credibility.
