Authorship heads to court
Stephen Thaler’s long‑running copyright fight over whether an AI can be named an author has a fresh thread in India as litigants press unresolved questions about machine‑generated works. (theprint.in) Commentary from communications professionals argues that even if AI writes copy, humans still bear judgment and consequence, framing authorship as tied to responsibility rather than mere generation. (odwyerpr.com)
A court in Delhi has given India’s Copyright Office eight weeks to decide whether an artificial intelligence system can be named the author of an artwork. (thehindu.com) The case was filed by U.S. computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who wants copyright registration for “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” an image he says was generated autonomously by his system DABUS. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued the direction on April 9, 2026. (indianexpress.com) India’s Copyright Office had objected that an author must be a “natural person,” and Thaler challenged that position in court. The Delhi High Court did not decide the authorship question itself last week; it told the registrar to decide the pending application first. (theprint.in) Copyright is the legal right that protects books, songs, films and art, and most copyright systems tie that right to a human creator. Thaler’s case tests whether a machine that makes an image without human input can fit inside that rule. (copyright.gov) That question is already moving through courts and agencies outside India. In the United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in 2025 that the Copyright Act requires human authorship for registration. (media.cadc.uscourts.gov) Thaler then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review that ruling, but the court denied his petition on March 2, 2026. The Supreme Court docket shows the denial after the case was distributed for conference in late February. (supremecourt.gov) The U.S. Copyright Office has also hardened its position as generative artificial intelligence tools spread. Its January 29, 2025 report said copyright can protect human-authored expression in works made with artificial intelligence assistance, but not material generated by a machine without human control over the expressive elements. (copyright.gov) India has already seen a related fight over mixed human-and-machine authorship. In 2020, the Copyright Office granted registration for the artwork “Suryast” listing creator Ankit Sahni and the tool RAGHAV AI as co-authors, and that registration later became the subject of litigation that reached the Delhi High Court. (indianexpress.com; indiankanoon.org) That earlier Indian dispute involved a human and a tool listed together; Thaler’s application goes further by asking for recognition of a non-human system as the sole author. The distinction is why the Delhi matter now sits at the center of India’s unresolved rules for machine-generated works. (theprint.in) Outside the courtroom, some communications executives are arguing that authorship is not only about who generated the words but who bears the consequences. In an April 13 commentary, public relations executive Gil Bashe wrote that artificial intelligence can draft material, but “doesn’t carry responsibility when advice leads to consequences.” (odwyerpr.com) The next move is administrative, not philosophical. If India’s Copyright Office rejects Thaler again, the authorship fight that has already run through U.S. agencies and courts is likely to return to the Delhi High Court with a sharper record. (thehindu.com; indianexpress.com)
