The Dilemma of Authorship in AI Assisted Works- A Comparative Analysis Between the U.S. and India
This guest post is co-authored by Shubhang Shukla and Divya Gautam, alumni of the Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University, and graduates of B.A. LL.B (Hons.) in Intellectual Property Rights.
Introduction
The evolution in the field of artificial intelligence has brought new challenges to the concepts of intellectual property. As AI generated and AI assisted works become more prevalent, the traditional legal concepts of authorship have to be revised to prevent stagnation in the field of AI and safeguard economic interests.
This article explores the emerging legal complexities with regard to the concept of authorship under copyright laws of different jurisdictions focusing on the divergent rulings of the United States Copyright Office and the Indian Copyright Office. It examines the landmark decision by the U.S. Copyright Office to grant copyright protection to “A Single Piece of American Cheese,” an AI-assisted work, while maintaining its stance that purely AI-generated content is not copyrightable. In contrast, the Indian Copyright Office’s recognition of joint authorship between a human and an AI system in the case of “Suryast” suggests a divergent approach.
These divergent approaches undertaken in different jurisdictions raise critical issues regarding the definition of authorship and make a case for revising copyright laws to incorporate the rapidly changing landscape of intellectual property rights vis a vis AI.
A Single Piece of American Cheese
In a significant ruling, the U.S. Copyright Office granted copyright protection to “Invoke” for “A Single Piece of American Cheese” thereby making it the first time a work created entirely with AI assisted material received copyright protection.
Initially, the Copyright Office denied the application in September 2024 but reversed its decision in January 2025, after a request for reconsideration argued, the work met the legal standard for selection, coordination and arrangement. The U.S. Copyright Office stated that this work fulfilled the necessary legal standard through the selection, coordination and arrangement of AI generated elements, which are key principles.
It has always been held by the U.S. Copyright Office that purely machine generated content created without meaningful human intervention cannot be copyrighted i.e. for a work to be copyrighted it must be the product of human authorship. This was evident from various decisions of the U.S. Copyright Office, for example, in September 2022, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected Jason Allen’s Midjourney generated artwork, in February 2023, even though the U.S. Copyright Office granted Kris Kashtanova copyright to the text and compilation of a graphic novel, but not the AI generated elements. In all these decisions, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected the claim of copyright by stating that the works lacked human authorship.
Invoke in order to demonstrate sufficient human authorship focused on submitting a work that highlighted a multi stage process, iterative refinement and creative decision-making. The entire argument of Invoke was that “if enough creative decisions were made in the process of creating the image and if those decisions were made using an interface that allows for a high-level of artistic control, then copyright should be issued for the selection, refinement and arrangement of the AI generated material into the final image.”
The Copyright Office ruled that “A Single Piece of American Cheese” met the threshold for copyright because the creator actively selected, coordinated and arranged numerous AI generated image fragments into unified composition. The office agreed that this creative decision-making process mirrors that of a collage artist, where individual components are curated as structured into a cohesive whole.
The definition offered by WIPO in paragraph 12 of the Revised Statement on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence states,“AI-generated…….refer to the generation of an output by AI without human intervention. In this scenario, AI can change its behavior during operation to respond to unanticipated information or events. This is to be distinguished from “AI-assisted” outputs that are generated with material human intervention and/or direction” thereby, making it a fit case for Invoke to use the terminology AI assisted in preference to AI generated and obtain protection for its AI-based artwork.
Different Approaches of the U.S. and India
A fact, that has to be noted, is that Invoke in its original application to the Copyright Office listed Invoke AI inc. as the sole author and claimant of the work, but in its request for reconsideration Mr. Kent Keirsey, the CEO of Invoke AI inc. was listed as the sole author. This creates a situation wherein even though the work was AI assisted, the sole authorship was granted to a human. This is different from the Indian situation in the case of “Suryast” in which Ankit Sahni was granted joint-authorship of the work along with an AI based tool by the name of RAGHAV (robust, artificial intelligence, graphics, and art visualiser) which simply generated the artwork by feeding a digital photograph authored by Mr. Sahni into RAGHAV along with an image of Vincent van Gogh's “The Starry Night” as the style input. However, it must be noted that the Indian Copyright Office initially refused an application to grant sole authorship to RAGHAV but granted it joint authorship along with Mr. Sahni on a second application being filed. The standard or the test followed by the Indian Copyright Office in doing this is still unclear considering the fact that the Copyright Office, post the rejection of grant of copyright to “Suryast” by the U.S. Copyright Office, has issued a withdrawal notice asking Mr. Sahni to provide further information regarding the legal status of the AI tool used by him. His claim was rejected by the United States Copyright Office citing lack of human authorship, necessary to support a claim of copyright.
Now, we have two situations; the first in the U.S.A. – where a human has been granted sole authorship of a work, even though the work was AI assisted; the second in India– where a human has been granted joint-authorship along with an AI based tool for a work that was simply generated, by feeding a digital photograph into an already existing painting. Based on the reasoning deployed by the Copyright Office in India, Invoke AI inc. could have been granted joint authorship along with the Mr.Keirsey had the same logic been applied, which was applied in the case of “Suryast”.
Conclusion
The evolving landscape of artificial intelligence is challenging the established notions of authorship of work, as is apparent from divergent copyright rulings in the United States and India. The U.S. Copyright Office’s recognition of “A Single Piece of American Cheese” as an AI-assisted but human-authored work, contrasted with India’s grant of joint authorship to an AI tool in the case of “Suryast,” underscores the lack of global consensus on AI-generated works. This disparity highlights the pressing need for a more adaptable legal framework that acknowledges the creative contributions of both humans and AI systems. As artificial intelligence continues to advance, intellectual property laws must evolve to balance the protection of human creativity with the realities of AI’s role in artistic and commercial expression. The insistence upon human authorship might act as an impediment to the recognition of certain kinds of work, thereby resisting the commercial growth linked with the protection of these rights.
One of the many sustainable and pragmatic alternatives for the time being might actually be the recognition of the AI tool or program as a joint author along with the human that is responsible for the input of prompts that ultimately result in an original work.