language, sufficient when computers merely assisted humans, falters in an age where AI can generate entire books, films, or musical compositions without meaningful human input.

The debate is no longer academic. In 2023, a U.S. court denied copyright to images generated solely by AI, reiterating that “human authorship” is the bedrock of copyright protection. In India, publishing houses are grappling with the rise of AI-written content, raising questions of ownership, originality, and liability. If AI can churn out a novel indistinguishable from a human’s, does the law reward the programmer, the user, or no one at all?

Patents in the Age of Algorithms

The patent system, designed to incentivise human ingenuity, faces a similar conundrum. The global DABUS case—where the AI system “DABUS” was named as inventor for novel food containers and emergency lights—has triggered worldwide debate. South Africa granted the patent, but courts in the U.S., U.K., and EU rejected it, insisting on human inventorship.

India, with its booming pharmaceutical and biotech sectors, cannot ignore this debate. AI is already being deployed in drug discovery, materials engineering, and climate technology. If a life-saving drug is designed by an AI system, should the absence of a human inventor deny it protection? Equally important, if AI is granted inventorship, who bears responsibility for misuse or infringement—the developer, the owner, or the machine itself?

Trademarks, Deepfakes, and Consumer Confusion

AI’s disruption is not limited to copyright and patents. With tools capable of generating logos, slogans, and even brand identities in seconds, trademark law too is under strain. More dangerously, the rise of AI-driven deepfakes and synthetic advertisements threatens consumer trust. Just last year, India witnessed political campaigns infiltrated with AI-manipulated videos, raising ethical as well as legal alarms. In such an environment, ensuring authenticity and preventing deception will be central to the future of trademark protection.

The Global and Indian Challenge

Internationally, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is holding consultations to shape an AI-IPR framework. China has already granted limited copyright protection to AI generated works, signalling a more flexible approach. India, which aspires to be a global technology hub, cannot afford to lag. The absence of clarity could either discourage investment in AI-driven innovation or open the floodgates to unchecked exploitation.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, in its 2021 report on IPR, flagged the issue of AI but offered no concrete roadmap. With India’s G20 presidency highlighting digital transformation, this is the moment for the government to initiate wide consultation with industry, academia, and civil society to reimagine IPR law in the age of AI.

A New Social Contract for Creativity

The law must adapt, but cautiously. Granting AI the same rights as humans could undermine accountability, while denying recognition altogether could stifle innovation. The middle path lies in recognising hybrid authorship—acknowledging the role of both human input and AI output. New sui generis protections for AI-generated works may also be necessary, distinct from traditional copyright and patents.

Ultimately, intellectual property is not just about rewarding innovation but about shaping the innovation ecosystem itself. If the system fails to keep pace with AI, India risks both legal uncertainty and technological stagnation.

Conclusion

Artificial Intelligence is rewriting the grammar of creativity and invention. Intellectual property law, still rooted in the 20th century, must not become an obstacle in the 21st. India has the opportunity to lead with a framework that balances innovation, accountability, and ethics. The challenge before policymakers and the judiciary is urgent and clear: to ensure that the future of creativity, whether human, machine, or hybrid, is protected and nurtured— without compromising on responsibility and fairness.