{"id":653,"date":"2026-09-07T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-07T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/india-ai-generated-work-authorship\/"},"modified":"2026-09-07T09:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-09-07T09:00:00","slug":"india-ai-generated-work-authorship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/en\/blog\/india-ai-generated-work-authorship\/","title":{"rendered":"India: Thaler, not the AI, is the author of &#8220;A Recent Entrance to Paradise&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On 31 August 2026, India&#8217;s Registrar of Copyrights held that Dr Stephen Thaler, not his AI system DABUS, is the person who can be identified as author of the artwork &#8220;A Recent Entrance to Paradise&#8221;. The order accepted that the AI-generated work is original, but rejected the application because Thaler insisted on naming DABUS as author. For companies that create content with AI, India&#8217;s approach to AI-generated work authorship differs from the human-authorship rules of the United States and the EU, and that affects how a global portfolio should be registered.<\/p>\n<h2>Key takeaways<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>India&#8217;s Copyright Act gives authorship of a computer-generated work to <strong>&#8220;the person who causes the work to be created&#8221;<\/strong> (section 2(d)(vi)); the Registrar read this as a legally recognised person, never the AI system.<\/li>\n<li>The Office found that the work meets India&#8217;s modest originality threshold, even though DABUS produced the final image.<\/li>\n<li>The application (diary no. 9356\/2022-CO\/A) was rejected only because Thaler declined to amend the author entry; he may still pursue remedies with correct particulars.<\/li>\n<li>In the US, the same image was refused registration because the law requires a human author, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on 2 March 2026.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>What did India&#8217;s Copyright Office decide?<\/h2>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/chatgptiseatingtheworld.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/India-Copyright-Office-Decision-in-9356-2022-CO-A-DABAS-as-Author-Copyright-Office-Final-Order-Dt-31-08-2026.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">final order of 31 August 2026<\/a>, signed by the Registrar of Copyrights, Prof (Dr) Unnat P Pandit, closes an application filed on 3 May 2022. Thaler listed DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) as author and himself as owner. The Office held hearings in April, May and June 2026 with an amicus curiae, after the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.asiaiplaw.com\/sector\/copyright\/delhi-high-court-to-copyright-office-decide-on-thaler-application-for-ai-artwork-in-eight-weeks\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Delhi High Court directed on 9 April 2026<\/a> that the matter be decided promptly.<\/p>\n<p>The Registrar&#8217;s findings were:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The work satisfies the originality test under section 13, which requires independent creation and a minimal degree of creativity.<\/li>\n<li>DABUS is not a natural or juristic person and cannot be entered as author.<\/li>\n<li>On Thaler&#8217;s own account, he is the person who caused the work to be created and is therefore capable of being its statutory author.<\/li>\n<li>Recording DABUS as author and Thaler as owner is legally inconsistent, because an AI cannot hold or assign copyright.<\/li>\n<li>Whether AI should ever be an author is a matter for Parliament.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The order also left open whether a neutral remark about the technology used could be added to the register in a separate, properly framed request. <a href=\"https:\/\/barandbench.com\/news\/litigation\/ai-generated-work-can-get-copyright-but-ai-system-cannot-be-author-indian-copyright-office\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Bar &amp; Bench reported the decision<\/a> the same day.<\/p>\n<h2>How does India compare with the US, the UK and the EU on AI-generated work authorship?<\/h2>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Jurisdiction<\/th>\n<th>Rule<\/th>\n<th>Effect for AI output without human creative input<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>India<\/td>\n<td>Computer-generated work: author is the person who causes it to be created (s. 2(d)(vi))<\/td>\n<td>Can be protected; the human or company behind it is the author, never the AI<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>United States<\/td>\n<td>Copyright Act requires a human author in the first instance<\/td>\n<td>Not registrable; human contributions may be protected<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>United Kingdom<\/td>\n<td>Computer-generated work: author is the person who made the necessary arrangements (s. 9(3) CDPA)<\/td>\n<td>Protected for now; the government has proposed removing this protection<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>EU and Spain<\/td>\n<td>Originality as the author&#8217;s own intellectual creation; in Spain the author is a natural person<\/td>\n<td>Protection depends on human creative choices<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>In <a href=\"https:\/\/media.cadc.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/docs\/2025\/03\/23-5233.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Thaler v Perlmutter<\/a> (18 March 2025), the D.C. Circuit held that the Copyright Act requires all eligible work to be authored by a human being; there the system was called the &#8220;Creativity Machine&#8221;. It did not consider whether Thaler himself was the author, because that argument had not been raised before the agency. The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/search.aspx?filename=\/docket\/docketfiles\/html\/public\/25-449.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Supreme Court denied certiorari<\/a> on 2 March 2026.<\/p>\n<p>India&#8217;s wording mirrors <a href=\"https:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/1988\/48\/section\/9\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">section 9(3) of the UK Act<\/a>, which the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/report-and-impact-assessment-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence\/report-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">UK government proposed in March 2026<\/a> to remove for wholly computer-generated works. In the EU, originality is defined, for example for photographs in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/eudr\/2006\/116\/article\/6\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Article 6 of Directive 2006\/116\/EC<\/a>, as &#8220;the author&#8217;s own intellectual creation&#8221;, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.boe.es\/buscar\/act.php?id=BOE-A-1996-8930\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Article 5.1 of Spain&#8217;s Intellectual Property Law<\/a> states that the author is the natural person who creates the work.<\/p>\n<h2>What this means for your business<\/h2>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Record who causes each work<\/strong>: keep evidence of the people who configure, prompt, select and edit AI output. In India that person is the author; in Spain and the US, their creative choices are what can be protected.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Never name the AI as author<\/strong>: in India it led to rejection after four years; in the US it led to refusal and lost appeals.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Align ownership<\/strong>: make sure employment and contractor agreements assign rights from the individuals who cause or create the work to the company.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Adapt each filing<\/strong>: the same asset may be registrable in India, protected under the UK rule and protected only in part in the EU. Disclose AI use where the office requires it.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Our <a href=\"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/en\/services\/ai-digital-assets\/\">AI and digital assets team, which advises on authorship and ownership of AI-generated works<\/a>, can review how your content is created and documented before you register it in several countries.<\/p>\n<h2>Where companies get this wrong<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Using one registration strategy everywhere.<\/strong> A filing that works in India may be refused or open to challenge in the US or Spain.<\/li>\n<li>Assuming an Indian registration settles ownership abroad. Each court applies its own authorship rule.<\/li>\n<li>Leaving the chain of title incomplete. The Registrar stressed that the register must show a lawful link between author, first owner and any assignee.<\/li>\n<li>Losing evidence of human input. Without records of prompts, selections and edits, it is hard to prove protection in human-authorship systems.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n<h3>Did India register &#8220;A Recent Entrance to Paradise&#8221;?<\/h3>\n<p>No. The Registrar rejected application 9356\/2022-CO\/A on 31 August 2026 because Thaler maintained that DABUS was the author, despite an express opportunity to amend. The order found the work original and identified Thaler as the person capable of being its author, and said he may pursue remedies on correct particulars.<\/p>\n<h3>Can a company be the author of an AI-generated work in India?<\/h3>\n<p>Section 2(d)(vi) refers to the person who causes the work to be created, and the order treats that as a natural or juristic person recognised in law. A company may therefore qualify on suitable facts, but this order concerned an individual, so each case should be assessed on how the work was actually produced.<\/p>\n<h3>Does this decision affect protection in Spain or the EU?<\/h3>\n<p>Not directly. Spanish law defines the author as a natural person, and EU originality depends on the author&#8217;s own intellectual creation. An Indian registration does not change that, but evidence of human contributions gathered for India can also support protection in Europe.<\/p>\n<h3>Can IP Global Guard handle AI-generated works across several countries?<\/h3>\n<p>Yes. We review how your works are created, prepare the documentation and contracts, and coordinate registrations through qualified local correspondents, including in India and the US for clients of our corridor. You work with one point of contact and one strategy.<\/p>\n<h2>How IP Global Guard can help protect your AI-assisted works<\/h2>\n<p>IP Global Guard, the intellectual property line of META Channel Corporation Limited, manages copyright and digital assets across more than 25 jurisdictions in <a href=\"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/en\/coverage\/\">Europe, Latin America and Africa<\/a>, and extends that work to markets such as India through coordinated local correspondents. Within the same group, we also cover AI Act compliance.<\/p>\n<p>Send us a short description of the works you create with AI, who takes part in creating them and the countries where you need protection. We will tell you how to document authorship and ownership in each one. <a href=\"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/en\/contact\/\">Ask our team for a review of your AI-generated portfolio<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><em>This article is general information, not legal advice, and describes an administrative order that may be challenged.<\/em><\/p>\n<h2>Sources<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/chatgptiseatingtheworld.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/India-Copyright-Office-Decision-in-9356-2022-CO-A-DABAS-as-Author-Copyright-Office-Final-Order-Dt-31-08-2026.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Copyright Office of India, Registrar of Copyrights, final order in diary no. 9356\/2022-CO\/A (31 August 2026)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/chatgptiseatingtheworld.com\/2026\/08\/31\/india-copyrght-office-rules-thaler-not-ai-can-be-author-of-ai-generated-work-a-recent-entrance-to-paradise-which-does-satisfy-copyrights-requirement-of-originality\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">ChatGPT Is Eating the World, India Copyright Office rules Thaler, not AI, can be author (31 August 2026)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/barandbench.com\/news\/litigation\/ai-generated-work-can-get-copyright-but-ai-system-cannot-be-author-indian-copyright-office\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Bar &amp; Bench, AI-generated work can get copyright but AI system cannot be author (31 August 2026)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.asiaiplaw.com\/sector\/copyright\/delhi-high-court-to-copyright-office-decide-on-thaler-application-for-ai-artwork-in-eight-weeks\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Asia IP, Delhi High Court to copyright office: decide on Thaler application in eight weeks (20 April 2026)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/media.cadc.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/docs\/2025\/03\/23-5233.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Thaler v Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (18 March 2025)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/search.aspx?filename=\/docket\/docketfiles\/html\/public\/25-449.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Supreme Court of the United States, docket 25-449, petition denied (2 March 2026)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/1988\/48\/section\/9\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 9, legislation.gov.uk<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/report-and-impact-assessment-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence\/report-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">GOV.UK, Report on copyright and artificial intelligence (18 March 2026)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/eudr\/2006\/116\/article\/6\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Directive 2006\/116\/EC, Article 6 (12 December 2006)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.boe.es\/buscar\/act.php?id=BOE-A-1996-8930\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">BOE, Royal Legislative Decree 1\/1996, consolidated Intellectual Property Law, Article 5<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>India&#8217;s Registrar of Copyrights found DABUS&#8217;s artwork original but held that Thaler, not the AI, can be its author. How it compares with the US, UK and EU.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1257,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"wds_primary_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[44],"class_list":["post-653","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ai-digital-assets","tag-spain"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/653","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=653"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/653\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1257"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipglobalguard.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}