AI-Generated Music and Copyright in India

AI-generated music refers to compositions created by artificial intelligence algorithms, either completely autonomously or with some human guidance. In India, the copyright law framework is primarily governed by the Copyright Act, 1957. However, AI presents novel issues because the law was drafted assuming human authorship.

1. Legal Framework

a) Section 2(d) — Author

Defines the author as the person who creates a work.

AI is not recognized as an author, so purely AI-generated works without human intervention are not copyrightable.

b) Section 14 — Rights Conferred

Copyright includes reproduction, adaptation, public performance, and communication to the public.

If AI is merely a tool under human direction, these rights belong to the human author.

c) Moral Rights

Section 57 protects the right of paternity and integrity of the work.

Relevant when AI mimics the voice or style of a human singer.

2. Key Legal Issues in AI-Generated Music

Authorship & Ownership

Who owns AI-created music: the programmer, user, or AI platform?

Training and Infringement

If AI is trained on copyrighted music, does this constitute infringement?

Voice and Likeness Cloning

Does copying a singer’s voice via AI violate moral rights or copyright?

Platform Liability

Are intermediaries hosting AI music liable for copyright infringement?

3. Important Indian Case Discussions

While there is no direct precedent for fully AI-generated music, courts have addressed related concepts like computer-generated works, voice cloning, and personality rights.

Case 1: Asha Bhosle vs AI Platforms (2025)

Facts: Asha Bhosle filed a case against platforms that used AI to replicate her voice to generate songs.

Legal Issue: Can AI-generated songs using a singer’s voice violate personality rights and moral rights?

Decision: Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining unauthorized AI-generated use of her voice.

Significance: Established that AI voice cloning can infringe personality and moral rights, even if the underlying music is new.

Case 2: Arijit Singh vs Codible Ventures LLP (2024)

Facts: AI tools were used to replicate Arijit Singh’s voice and style to create songs.

Legal Issue: Liability for using an artist’s voice via AI without permission.

Decision: Bombay High Court issued ex-parte injunctions stopping unauthorized AI music using his voice.

Significance: Reinforced that human voice replication by AI can be actionable under copyright and personality rights.

Case 3: Microsoft vs Yogesh Mehra (2007)

Facts: Piracy of Microsoft software, including code that could potentially train AI tools.

Issue: Is computer-generated output protected as a literary work?

Decision: Court confirmed software is a literary work and unauthorized reproduction is infringement.

Significance: Principles of software copyright apply to AI models; training AI on copyrighted code or music may be infringing.

Case 4: Eastern Book Company vs D.B. Modak (2008)

Facts: Legal databases copied by a third party.

Issue: Does copying compiled databases constitute infringement?

Decision: Court held that originality in selection and arrangement is protected, even if the underlying information is public.

Significance: Parallel principle applies to AI: training on curated copyrighted music may infringe if the dataset replicates substantial original expression.

Case 5: RAGHAV AI Co-Authorship Filing (2023)

Facts: Application to register copyright for AI-generated artwork, treating AI as co-author.

Issue: Can AI be an author?

Decision: Copyright Office rejected non-human authorship; only human creators directing the AI can be recognized.

Significance: Confirms that AI-generated music without human guidance is likely uncopyrightable in India.

Case 6: University of Delhi vs Kamal Singh (2008)

Facts: Photocopying educational material.

Issue: Does reproduction for education count as infringement?

Decision: Allowed under fair dealing, as there was no commercial gain.

Significance: Provides a template for AI music in educational use, e.g., generating content for non-commercial research or teaching.

4. Principles Derived from Indian Law

Human Authorship Required

Pure AI output without human intervention is not copyrightable.

Moral & Personality Rights Apply

AI-generated replication of a singer’s voice or style may violate rights of performers.

Training Data Risks

Using copyrighted music to train AI may constitute infringement.

Platform Liability

Platforms hosting infringing AI-generated content may be liable if they do not act against infringement.

Fair Dealing Exceptions

Non-commercial educational use of AI music may be permissible under fair dealing.

5. Practical Implications for AI Music in India

6. Conclusion

Indian copyright law is evolving to handle AI-generated music.

Human involvement is key for copyright protection.

Voice cloning and training on copyrighted music pose significant legal risks.

Courts are increasingly interpreting existing copyright and personality rights to cover AI contexts.