Delhi High Court Questions Copyright in AI-Generated Song, Flags Unsettled Legal Position and Denies Interim Relief

Delhi High Court Questions Copyright in AI-Generated Song, Flags Unsettled Legal Position and Denies Interim Relief

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has raised significant questions regarding the copyrightability of AI-generated works while hearing an infringement suit filed by songwriter-producer Tarun Chaudhary. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the legal position on AI-generated content remains unsettled and questioned whether copyright can subsist in a composition generated by artificial intelligence.

Factual Background

The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the master rights of a song allegedly infringed by the defendants. According to him, while the lyrics were authored by a human, the musical composition was generated using the Suno AI platform based on specific prompts provided by a music producer. He alleged that the defendants had used the same song without authorisation, thereby infringing his rights in the work.

Procedural Background

The matter came before the Delhi High Court on an application seeking interim injunction against alleged infringement. During the hearing, the Court examined the nature of rights claimed and found ambiguity in the pleadings regarding the exact subject matter of copyright.

Issues

1. Whether copyright can subsist in an AI-generated musical composition under Indian law.

2. Whether a person providing prompts to an AI tool qualifies as the “author” under Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act.

3. Whether a purchaser of rights can claim copyright where the original creator’s rights are uncertain.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff argued that under Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, the author of a computer-generated work is the person who causes it to be created. He contended that the music was generated through human input in the form of prompts and that he validly acquired rights in the work.

The defendants opposed the claim, arguing that AI-generated output may not qualify for copyright protection and that the platform’s terms do not guarantee vesting of copyright. They further submitted that if the original creator did not possess enforceable copyright, the plaintiff, as a subsequent purchaser, could not claim exclusive rights.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the legal framework governing AI-generated works remains undeveloped and that there is no authoritative judicial precedent on the issue. It expressed doubt as to whether copyright can be claimed where the composition is generated entirely by an AI tool with minimal human intervention.

The Court also highlighted ambiguity in the plaintiff’s claim, observing that it was unclear whether copyright was asserted over the lyrics, composition, sound recording, or the entire song. While the lyrics may constitute a human-authored work, the musical composition appeared to lack clear evidence of human creativity or arrangement.

Recognising the complexity of the issue, the Court directed that the Registrar of Copyrights be impleaded as a party to assist in determining the scope of protection available under the law. Given the unsettled legal position and lack of clarity in pleadings, the Court held that the matter was not fit for grant of interim injunction at this stage.

Decision

The Delhi High Court declined to grant interim relief and directed the defendants to file their replies. The matter remains pending for further adjudication on the substantive legal issues.