A new government framework in India aims to balance AI development and creator remuneration through a ‘One Nation One License One Payment’ model, requiring AI systems to obtain lawful access to works and pay royalties, with stakeholders set to give feedback during a consultation period.
A government-appointed committee convened by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has proposed a “One Nation One License One Payment” framework that would allow generative AI systems to train on any lawfully accessed copyright-protected works in India, in exchange for a mandatory blanket licence and statutory remuneration for creators. According to the executive summary of the committee’s working paper, the model is intended to preserve creators’ rights while supplying AI developers with predictable access to broad datasets. [1][3]
The committee, formed on 28 April 2025, framed the proposal as a hybrid solution after consulting technology firms and content-industry representatives and reviewing international approaches in the US, EU, UK, Japan and Singapore. Industry submissions reportedly favoured a text-and-data-mining (TDM) exception, while content bodies pushed for licensing; the panel concluded that an unqualified TDM exception would weaken copyright and leave creators uncompensated. The paper argues a compulsory blanket licence paired with royalties strikes a balance between access and protection. [1][3][6]
Under the proposal, AI developers would be able to use any works to which they had obtained lawful access for training without seeking individual permissions, but royalty payments would become due only once products or services trained on those works are commercialised. The committee recommends that rates be tied to revenue generated by covered AI systems and determined by a government-appointed body, providing judicial review of royalty-setting to ensure fairness. The approach aims to minimise transaction costs for developers while guaranteeing creators a stream of remuneration. [1][3]
To administer collections and distributions, the paper proposes a single nonprofit central body , the Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training (CRCAT) , designated under the Copyright Act. CRCAT would comprise one member organisation per class of works (for example existing collective management organisations) and would run a works-registration database to allocate royalties, including payments to non-members who register their works. Unclaimed funds in sectors lacking CMOs would be held for three years and then directed to a CRCAT welfare fund. [1][3]
The committee stressed that the licence would be conditional on lawful access: developers could not rely on the mandatory licence to circumvent paywalls or technological protection measures, and past unauthorised use would remain subject to current law and litigation. The paper framed this requirement as essential to give creators legal protection while offering AI firms “legal certainty” going forward. It also warned that opt-out or narrow TDM schemes would leave smaller creators vulnerable and could degrade dataset representativeness. [1][5][7]
Trade and publisher groups have publicly welcomed stronger protections for paid content, with industry bodies urging frameworks that ensure remuneration and attribution for journalistic and creative works. The DPIIT paper, the committee said, now seeks stakeholder responses as part of a public consultation period. Media reports note the government has invited feedback within 30 days. [4][2]
The committee indicated a second part of its working paper will address the copyright status of AI-generated outputs, including authorship, moral rights and liability for infringing outputs, signalling further potential changes to India’s copyright regime as policymakers attempt to reconcile innovation and cultural incentives. Industry data and legal analyses underline that India currently does not recognise machines as authors, a principle that will inform the forthcoming recommendations. [1][5][6]
📌 Reference Map:
##Reference Map:
- [1] (BestMediaInfo) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 7
- [3] (The Economic Times) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4
- [6] (Mondaq – AI regulation) – Paragraph 2, Paragraph 7
- [5] (Mondaq – copyright ownership) – Paragraph 5, Paragraph 7
- [4] (Business Standard / DNPA) – Paragraph 6
- [2] (The Week) – Paragraph 6
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:
9
Notes:
The narrative is recent, with the committee’s working paper released on December 8, 2025. The earliest known publication date of substantially similar content is June 22, 2025, when the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) called for copyright protection in AI training. ([indiatoday.in](https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/digital-news-publishers-body-seeks-copyright-protection-in-ai-training-practices-2744532-2025-06-22?utm_source=openai)) The report is based on a government-commissioned committee’s findings, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were found. The narrative includes updated data and new recommendations, justifying a higher freshness score.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
No direct quotes were identified in the provided text. The narrative relies on summarised information from the committee’s working paper and other sources. The absence of direct quotes suggests the content is potentially original or exclusive.
Source reliability
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative originates from BestMediaInfo, a reputable source in the media industry. The report is based on a government-commissioned committee’s findings, which adds credibility. However, the reliance on a single source for the committee’s recommendations introduces some uncertainty.
Plausability check
Score:
9
Notes:
The proposed ‘One Nation One License One Payment’ framework aligns with ongoing global discussions on AI and copyright. The committee’s recommendations are consistent with previous calls for fair compensation in AI training. The narrative lacks specific factual anchors, such as direct quotes or detailed data, which slightly reduces its plausibility score. The language and tone are consistent with official reports, and there are no signs of excessive or off-topic detail.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative presents recent and original content based on a government-commissioned committee’s findings, with no significant discrepancies or signs of disinformation. The reliance on a single source for the committee’s recommendations introduces some uncertainty, but overall, the report is credible and aligns with ongoing discussions on AI and copyright.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
