India is moving towards a comprehensive copyright regime that would require AI developers to pay royalties for training models on copyrighted works, sparking debate over innovation and creator rights.
India is moving towards a far-reaching copyright regime that would force artificial‑intelligence developers to pay royalties for training models on copyrighted works, under a government‑endorsed “One Nation, One Licence, One Payment” blanket‑licence model. The proposal, set out in a working paper from the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), would create a centralised mechanism to collect and distribute payments to creators and require AI firms to rely only on lawfully accessed material while filing detailed summaries of training datasets. [1][5][6]
Under the plan, a new body , provisionally named the Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training (CRCAT) , would administer the licence, collect fees from developers and allocate royalties to rights‑holders across sectors including publishing, music, film, journalism and visual arts. The CRCAT is envisaged as a government‑designated, non‑profit umbrella organisation formed by copyright societies and collective management organisations. [1][4][5][6]
The working paper favours flat, revenue‑linked percentage fees tied to global earnings of commercial AI systems, rather than use‑based or per‑work micro‑payments. Those rates would be set by a government‑appointed committee, reviewed roughly every three years and subject to judicial challenge, according to the proposal. DPIIT officials have said the fee calculation would look at global revenue, not solely Indian turnover, broadening the financial impact on multinationals. [1][7][5]
Crucially, the proposal would apply retroactively to developers that have already trained profitable models on copyright‑protected material , a measure framed by policymakers as corrective for the creative ecosystem but one that would raise complex legal and compliance questions for firms that have relied on prevailing fair‑use or opt‑out approaches elsewhere. [1][2]
Proponents within government argue the blanket‑licence avoids the transaction costs, bargaining asymmetries and fragmentation of voluntary bilateral deals, ensuring dependable access for developers while guaranteeing statutory remuneration for creators. The working paper explicitly rejects voluntary, piecemeal licensing as insufficient to protect smaller creators and to provide reliable data access for AI developers. [3][5]
Industry groups and some rights holders have pushed back. Trade association Nasscom and the Motion Picture Association have warned the model could act as a tax on innovation and stifle investment, arguing that mandatory levies and centralised rate‑setting risk chilling effects on AI development. Other stakeholders favour licensing frameworks that preserve negotiation flexibility, and some large publishers have already pursued individual licences with developers. The government has opened a 30‑day window for public and industry comments before the proposal proceeds to final review. [2][3]
The Indian proposal diverges from international approaches: it contrasts with the United States’ general acceptance of training on publicly available data under “fair use” doctrines and departs from the EU’s more nuanced opt‑out and rights‑management efforts. Japan has taken an even more permissive position. India’s model reflects a broader assertion of national control over data‑related rights and a willingness to impose statutory solutions to balance creative remuneration and technological development. [2][6]
Implementing the scheme would pose practical challenges: setting administratively fair rates, auditing compliance, tracking the provenance and use of training data, and allocating distributions equitably across millions of works and diverse creator classes. The plan proposes dataset reporting requirements from developers to aid monitoring, but industry lawyers predict litigation over retroactivity, scope and constitutional issues is likely if the framework becomes law. [1][5][6]
As the consultation period closes and the government considers submissions, the debate crystallises around competing objectives , ensuring creators are paid for commercial reuse of their work, versus preserving a regulatory environment conducive to innovation and investment in AI. How policymakers reconcile those aims will determine whether India’s model becomes a template for others or a contested outlier in global AI governance. [2][3][5]
📌 Reference Map:
##Reference Map:
- [1] (dig.watch) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 8, Paragraph 9
- [5] (New Indian Express) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 8, Paragraph 9
- [6] (The Tech Portal) – Paragraph 2, Paragraph 7, Paragraph 8
- [2] (Reuters) – Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7, Paragraph 9
- [3] (Indian Express) – Paragraph 5, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 9
- [4] (Times of India) – Paragraph 2
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 current, with the latest publication date being December 12, 2025. The earliest known publication date of substantially similar content is December 9, 2025. The narrative is based on a government-endorsed proposal, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were found. No earlier versions show different information. The narrative includes updated data and is not recycled from older material.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
No direct quotes were identified in the narrative. The information is presented in a paraphrased manner, indicating originality.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from reputable sources, including the Digital Watch Observatory, The Tech Portal, Reuters, and The Indian Express. These organisations are known for their credibility and journalistic standards.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are plausible and align with recent developments in AI and copyright law. The proposal for a mandatory AI royalty regime in India is consistent with ongoing global discussions on AI and intellectual property. The narrative provides specific details, including the establishment of the Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training (CRCAT) and the retroactive application of the proposal, which are corroborated by multiple reputable sources.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is current, original, and sourced from reputable organisations. The claims are plausible and supported by specific details that align with recent developments in AI and copyright law. No issues were identified that would undermine the credibility of the narrative.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
