COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT: AN INTERPLAY BETWEEN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE JURISPRUDENCE AND THE HUMAN INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT BY - LOKESH MITTAL & SANIGHDHA
AUTHORED
BY - LOKESH MITTAL &
SANIGHDHA
Abstract:
It is a trite in today’s world that
the humanity is moving towards the highest stage of development in case of
technology and innovations. Intellectual property laws and rights have built up
such a strong foundation for themselves that they are valued for their
intrinsic quality, all over the world. Intellectual property rights are the
treasure of knowledge and are a sign of the growth in human intellect, in one
way than another, to deal with the problems of the world. IPR include the
patents, trademarks, copyrights, designs, and the geographical indications that
help in identifying an innovation or an already existing property, that needs
to be preserved. Intellectual property has certain rights associated to it,
these rights are known as the intellectual property rights and henceforth, are
given to the persons who are the owners of these properties. This helps them in
securing their rights and as well as using it cautiously for the future
generations. On the other hand, technology is shaping our world, like never
before. The growth of artificial intelligence and further technological
advancements have led to the issues of challenging obstacles, mounting in the
form of data security breaches, privacy infringements and targeting of
individuals amidst revengeful events and materialistic desires. However, the
present research paper strives, to put in front the development in the field of
intellectual property rights, especially copyrights law and rights associated
with it, the growth in the instances of infringement and the possible remedial
measures for the same- whether criminal or civil side remedies; and lastly how
artificial intelligence has changed the whole paradigm for legal academicians,
advocates and judges- because solving and settling these disputes is no longer
easily attainable. It includes effective implementation of laws and a
cross-sectional study of each and every provision involved. Thus, the present
manuscript strives to delve into the complex arena of copyrights laws and the
association of generative artificial intelligence, with the same and how all
this effects the very basis of legal foundation in a country.
Keywords: Copyright Infringement; Artificial intelligence; Intellectual
Development; Jurisprudence; Generative Artificial Intelligence.
I.
INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITION: COPYRIGHTS AND ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE
According
to the World Intellectual Property Organisation, “Intellectual property (IP) refers
to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works;
designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce.
Intellectual property is protected in law by, for example, patents, copyright, and trademarks,
which enable people to earn recognition or financial benefit from what they
invent or create. By striking the right balance between the interests of
innovators and the wider public interest, the IP system aims to foster an
environment in which creativity and innovation can flourish.[1]”
Intellectual property rights (IPR) have been
defined as ideas, inventions, and creative expressions based on which there is
a public willingness to bestow the status of property. IPR provide certain
exclusive rights to the inventors or creators of that property, in order to
enable them to reap commercial benefits from their creative efforts or
reputation. There are several types of intellectual property protection like
patent, copyright, trademark, etc. Patent is a recognition for an invention,
which satisfies the criteria of global novelty, non-obviousness, and industrial
application. IPR is prerequisite for better identification, planning,
commercialization, rendering, and thereby protection of invention or
creativity. Each industry should evolve its own IPR policies, management style,
strategies, and so on depending on its area of specialty. [2]
According
to the Georgetown Law, intellectual
property law is defined as,
“the law
that deals with rules and regulations to protect and enforce rights of the
creators and owners of inventions, writing, music, designs, and other works,
known as the intellectual property. There are several areas of intellectual
property including copyright, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets.[3]” The same source
also explains trademark, patent, and copyright law as well in the following
words. Copyright law is defined as the, “law that protects the rights of
creators in their works in fine arts, publishing, entertainment, and computer
software. The laws protect the owner of the work if others copy, present, or
display the owners work without permission.[4]” On the other hand,
trademark law is enunciated as the, “the law that protects a word,
phrase, symbol, or design that is used by an entity to identify its product or
service. Examples are Dunkin Donuts orange and pink sausage style lettering,
Apple’s apple logo, and Adidas three stripes. Trademark owners can prevent
others from using their marks, or marks which are confusingly similar so that
consumers would not be able to identify the source. Federal and state laws
govern trademarks but the Lanham Act is the primary source of trademark
protection. These laws protect against infringement and dilution.[5]” However, if one has
to look into the word Copyright, specifically, it is defined as, “Copyright
is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of
authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in
a tangible form of expression. In copyright law, there are a lot of
different types of works, including paintings, photographs, illustrations,
musical compositions, sound recordings, computer programs, books, poems, blog
posts, movies, architectural works, plays, and so much more.[6]” However, one can
give a more specific definition to Copyright Law as, “Copyright
refers to the legal right of the owner of intellectual
property. In simpler terms, copyright is the right to copy. This means that the
original creators of products and anyone
they give authorization to are the only ones with the exclusive
right to reproduce the work. Copyright
law gives creators of original material the exclusive right to further
use and duplicate that material for a given amount of time. Once a copyright
expires, the copyrighted item becomes public domain.[7]” A
similar definition is followed in the Indian law[8]. However, copyright infringement on the other
hand, is understood as the infringing the rights of the person who holds the
titlehood to a particular copyright. It
is a serious issue and a lot of laws are made on the same.
FIGURE 1: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN INDIA
(Source:
https://www.google.com/search?q=IPRs+recognised+in+india+flow+chart)
On the
other hand. Artificial intelligence is defined as, ““artificial intelligence (AI) technology
allows computers and machines to simulate human
intelligence and
problem-solving tasks. The ideal characteristic of artificial intelligence is
its ability to rationalize and take action to achieve a specific goal. AI
research began in the 1950s and was used in the 1960s by the United States
Department of Defense when it trained computers to mimic human reasoning.”[9] Artificial intelligence systems work by using algorithms and
data. First, a massive amount of data is collected and applied to mathematical
models, or algorithms, which use the information to recognize patterns and make
predictions in a process known as training. Once algorithms have been trained,
they are deployed within various applications, where they continuously learn
from and adapt to new data. This allows AI systems to perform complex tasks
like image recognition, language processing and data analysis with greater
accuracy and efficiency over time.[10] The primary
approach to building AI systems is through machine learning (ML), where computers learn from
large datasets by identifying patterns and relationships within the data. A
machine learning algorithm uses statistical techniques to help it “learn” how
to get progressively better at a task, without necessarily having been
programmed for that certain task. It uses historical data as input to predict
new output values. Machine learning consists of both supervised
learning (where the
expected output for the input is known thanks to labeled data sets) and unsupervised
learning (where the
expected outputs are unknown due to the use of unlabeled data sets).[11] On the other hand, Generative Artificial Intelligence is a
step ahead from the basic functions of Artificial Intelligence and is described
as, “it describes algorithms (such as ChatGPT) that can be
used to create new content, including audio, code, images, text, simulations,
and videos. Recent breakthroughs in the field have the potential to drastically
change the way we approach content creation.”[12]
Generative AI refers to deep-learning models that can take raw data and “learn”
to generate statistically probable outputs when prompted. At a high level,
generative models encode a simplified representation of their training data and
draw from it to create a new work that is similar, but not identical, to the
original data. [13]Generative
models have been used for years in statistics to analyze numerical data. The
rise of deep learning, however, made it possible to extend them to images,
speech, and other complex data types. Among the first class of models to
achieve this cross-over feat were variational autoencoders, or VAEs, introduced in
2013. VAEs were the first deep-learning models to be widely used for generating
realistic images and speech. “VAEs opened the floodgates to deep generative
modeling by making models easier to scale,” said Akash Srivastava, an expert on
generative AI at the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. “Much of what we think of today as
generative AI started here.”[14]
The growth of Generative AI has been exponential but it has also given rise to
negative uses as well, such as deepfake videos, deep fake audios, etc.
According to Mike Walsh, “The potential
applications for AI in the legal world are immense and include composing client
briefs, producing complex analyses from troves of documents, and helping firms
with limited resources compete with the largest groups. AI can help to conduct
due diligence in corporate mergers and significantly aid legal education and
knowledge acquisition in complex and fast-moving areas.”[15] Thus, IPRs, copyrights, copyright
infringement, artificial intelligence, generative artificial intelligence, and
the very redressal mechanisms for the are interconnected to each other in a
spiral, that only law can entangle and present a true picture.
II.
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: A LEGAL CRITIQUE
According to Section
14 of The Copyrights Act 1957[16], copyrights is
defined as, — “For the purposes of this Act, copyright
means the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or
authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any
substantial part thereof, namely: —
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic, or
musical work, not being a computer programme, —
(i)
to reproduce the work in any material form
including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means;
(ii)
to
issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation;
(iii)
to perform the work in public, or communicate
it to the public;
(iv)
to make any cinematograph film or sound
recording in respect of the work;
(v)
to make any translation of the work;
(vi)
to make any adaptation of the work;
(vii)
to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation
of the work, any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses
(i) to (vi);
(b) in
the case of a computer programme, —
(i) to do any of the acts specified in
clause (a);
(ii) to sell or give on commercial
rental or offer for sale or for commercial rental any copy of the computer
programme: Provided that such commercial rental does not apply in respect of
computer programmes where the programme itself is not the essential object of
the rental.]
(c) in
the case of an artistic work, —
(i) to reproduce the work in any
material form including—
(A) the storing of it in any
medium by electronic or other means; or
(B) depiction in three-dimensions
of a two-dimensional work; or
(C) depiction in two-dimensions
of a three-dimensional work;]
(ii) to communicate the work to the
public;
(iii) to issue copies of the work to the
public not being copies already in circulation;
(iv) to include the work in any
cinematograph film;
(v) to make any adaptation of the work;
(vi) to do in relation to adaptation of the
work any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to
(iv);
(d) in
the case of a cinematograph film, —
[(i)
to make a copy of the film, including—
(A) a photograph of any image
forming part thereof; or
(B) storing of it in any medium
by electronic or other means;]
(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for such
rental, any copy of the film;]
(iii) to communicate the film to the
public;
(e) in the case of a sound recording, —
i.
to make any other sound recording embodying
it [including storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means];
ii.
[o sell or give on commercial rental or offer
for sale or for such rental, any copy of the sound recording;]
The aforementioned definition of the word copyright
is entirely descriptive and covers almost all aspects of the law that are
dealing with the copyright. However, infringement of the copyright is the
actual intentional and non-permissive way of taking the rights of the copyright
holder away from that specific person, which results in loss of dignity and
economic independence. There are various rights of a copyright holder and these
are defined below in a descriptive manner:
FIGURE 2: RIGHTS OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER/OWNER
(Source: https://vocal.media/lifehack/rights-of-a-copyright-owner-in-india)
However,
a person becomes the owner of the copyright or a copyright holder, only when
the entire registration process is complete and an illustrative diagram of the
copyright registration is given below in a figurative manner:
(Source:
https://aktassociates.com/blog/copyright-registration/)
As per the Copyright Act, 1957, the
use of a copyrighted work without the permission of the owner results in
copyright infringement. Infringement occurs when a third person unintentionally
or intentionally uses/copies the work of another without giving credit. It is usually
classified into two categories, i.e. primary and secondary infringement. Primary
infringement occurs when there is an actual act of copying, while secondary
infringement occurs when unauthorised dealings take place, such as selling or
importing pirated books, etc. In the case of secondary infringement, the
infringer will know about infringement, while in the case of primary
infringement, the infringer may or may not know about infringement.[18]
“The following elements should be
present for copyright infringement:
- The copyrighted work is the original creation of the
author
- The copyright infringement work is actually copied from
the work of the author.[19]”
Also, as per the Indian Copyrights
Act, 1957, instances of copyright infringement occur in the following cases:
- Copies of copyrighted work are made for hire/sale
without authority or permission, such as online piracy
- Infringing copies are distributed for personal and trade
gains
- Copyrighted work is performed in a public place
- Infringing copies are imported into India
- Public exhibition of infringing copies prejudicial to
the owner
- Reproduction of a dramatic, literary, artistic or
musical work other than in the form of a cinematograph film
- Creating a recording embodying the copyrighted sound
recording
- Copy of the cinematographic film[20]
Copyright Infringement
can occur, when: someone downloads movies from an unauthorised source, it will
be copyright infringement, when a person uses a television serial clip in a
YouTube video without giving credit and publishes the serial clip-on YouTube,
it amounts to copyright infringement, when someone uses a song’s music as
background music in his/her song, it results in copyright infringement.[21]
There are various landmark cases on the issue of copyright infringement and
these are:
1. Yashraj Films Private Limited v Sri
Sai Ganesh Production (AIR 2019 DEL 1017): This was a civil suit that was instituted by Yashraj Films
Pvt. Ltd for the copyright infringement of the Indian Bollywood movie “Band
Baja Baarat” which was released by the Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. in the year
2010. Sri Sai Ganesh Production (referred to here as the Defendant) was a
Telegu Production House that has produced a movie named “Jabardasth” which was
the replica of the Indian Bollywood movie “Band Baja Baarat”. The Telugu movie
was made without any permission from the original film producer. Yashraj Films
Pvt. Ltd had to file a copyright infringement suit against the Director and the
Distributor of the Telugu movie for infringing the rights of the original makers
of the movie. The Delhi High Court passed a judgment in the year 2019 in favor
of the Plaintiff i.e. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd.[22]
The reasoning of the Honourable Court was – “that to make a copy of the film does
not mean just to make a physical copy of the film by a process of duplication,
but it also refers to another film which substantially, fundamentally,
essentially, and materially resembles/reproduces the original film.
Accordingly, the blatant copying of fundamental /essential/distinctive features
of the plaintiff’s advertisement on purpose would amount to copyright
infringement. Consequently, the Court will have to compare "the substance,
the foundation, the kernel" of the two advertisements to consider whether
one was "by and large a copy" of the other and whether an average
viewer would get an unmistakable impression that one work was a copy of the
other[23].”
Thus, this case solved the issue of what will amount to cinematographic
infringement of copyright works and to what extent can the infringer be held
liable.
2. Hawkins Cokker Limited v Magicooks
Appliances 2002 (100) DLT (698): Hawkins Cookers Ltd., a well-established company in the
manufacture and marketing of pressure cookers, filed a suit against Magicook
Appliances Co. alleging infringement of its copyright under the Copyright Act,
1957. The plaintiff claimed that Magicook Appliances Co. was using a label on
its pressure cookers that was deceptively similar to Hawkins Cookers’
distinctive label. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that Magicook Appliances
Co. had reproduced substantial portions of its cookery and instructions book in
their own publication without authorization. Despite cease-and-desist notices,
Magicook Appliances Co. continued their actions, prompting Hawkins Cookers Ltd.
to seek permanent injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts.[24] The
court proceeded ex parte against the defendants due to their failure to appear
in court. The judge found in favor of the plaintiff on all issues raised. The
defendants were permanently injuncted from using the deceptive label,
reproducing the plaintiff’s book, or dealing with any materials infringing on
the plaintiff’s copyright. Additionally, the defendants were ordered to deliver
up all offending materials for destruction and to render accounts of profits
earned illegally. The court upheld the plaintiff’s rights under the Copyright
Act, 1957, and recognized the importance of protecting intellectual property
from infringement. The decision emphasizes the need to prevent dishonest
manufacturers from misleading consumers and profiting from the goodwill and
reputation earned by others. The ruling highlights the significance of
registration under the Copyright Act as prima facie evidence of copyright
ownership and provides remedies for infringement, including injunctions,
damages, and rendition of accounts.[25]
Thus, the present case is a landmark in copyright issues in the industrial
sector and holds ground in all such present and future cases that come before
the court.
There are many landmark cases that
deal with copyright infringement and a re descriptive and properly reasoned as
to their own peculiar facts and circumstances.
It is noteworthy that the Google AI
system has become advanced to the extent that it has created a child of its
own. The child AI is being trained by the parent AI to “such a high level that
it outperforms every other human-built AI system.” The performance of child AI
is evaluated by the parent AI which acts as a controller. The information so
received is used to improve the child AI’s performance. This process is
repeated thousands of times to make the child AI more effective and advanced.
The increasing role of AI in the area of creativity and innovation has been
recognized worldwide. Recently, the OpenAI, an artificial intelligence lab in
the United States unveiled a new AI system called GPT-3 which spent several
months “learning the ins and outs of natural language by analyzing thousands of
digital books, the length and breadth of Wikipedia, and nearly a trillion words
posted to blogs, social media and the rest of the internet”. The GPT-3 inter
alia writes poetry, generates tweets, responds to trivia questions, summarizes
emails, “translates languages and even writes its own computer programs”. It
can understand the “vagaries of human language” and is capable of tackling
other “human skills”. In addition to the above, AI can write local news
articles, generate artwork, write short novels, and generate music by listening
to various recordings. AI is also very useful in gaming. AI has created serious
issues and posed challenges in the area of copyright law.[26] There
has been an extensive use of computer programs in the generation of copyrighted
works since the 1970s. The computer-generated works did not create much
problems with respect to copyright ownership. The reason was that computer
programs were considered mere tools to support the activities which were
creative in nature and the human intervention was required for the production
of the work. These programs were just like stationery items which required
human beings to use them to create works. The things have completely changed
now. With AI in place, the computer programs are no more tools alone and have
the potential of generating the works independently by taking their own
decisions. The AI has the potential to create an enormous amount of work with
less investment in a very short span of time. The works created by AI may
qualify for copyright protection in all the jurisdictions for being original.
The requirement of use of “skill and judgement” in originality may be deemed to
have been satisfied by virtue of the “programming and parameter on which such
AI actually compiles and creates the work”. However, there will be no author in
the case of AI-generated work. In case of AI-assisted works, there is human
intervention. In case of AI-assisted works, there is human intervention.
Therefore, in case of latter, the person who caused the work to be created by
using artificial intelligence may claim himself to be the author, but the same
is not true where the work has been created by AI itself without any human
intervention. The issue of authorship in such cases has puzzled all countries
of the world.[27]
Therefore, the question as to the authorship of AI-generated works and whether
or not they are actual works is still hanging as a Damocles’ Sword and must be
answered at the earliest. Whether or not a work generated by AI should be given
the same rights as the authors of tangible and intangible human induced
copyrights work is still a question and a serious one at that. The aspects of
digital constitutionalism also come into the picture amidst all this.
However, till the time these
questions are answered, one needs to look into already existing remedies for
copyright infringement and apply those. These remedies are given a figurative
space in the present research for better and clear understanding.
FIGURE 4: REMEDIES FOR COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT
(Source:
https://www.google.com/searchremedies+for+copyright+infringement&udm -)
The remedies provided by the
Copyright Act 1957 against infringement of copyright are:
- civil remedies – these provide for injunctions, damages,
rendition of accounts, delivery and destruction of infringing copies and
damages for conversion;
- criminal remedies – these provide for imprisonment,
fines, seizure of infringing copies and delivery of infringing copies to
the owner; and
- border enforcement – the act also provides for the
prohibition of import and destruction of imported goods that infringe the
copyright of a person with the assistance of the customs authorities of
India.[28]
- The period of limitation for
filing a suit for damages for infringement of copyright is three years
from the date of such infringement. However, each time there is an
infringement, it constitutes a recurring cause of action, which will
provide a fresh limitation for filing an action (M/S
Bengal Waterproof Ltd v M/S Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company &
Another).[29]
The Copyright
Act 1957 has provided for the enforcement of copyright through a series of
penal provisions under Chapter 13 of the act. The following are the principal
penal provisions under the act:[30]
- Under section 63, where any
person knowingly infringes or abets infringement of the copyright in a
work and any other right as covered by the Copyright Act, 1957 (broadcast
reproduction rights, performers’ rights, moral rights, etc), such person
may be punished with imprisonment of a minimum term of six months and a
maximum term of three years, and a fine of between 50,000 and 200,000
rupees.
- Section 65A penalizes
circumvention of effective technological measures that may be applied to
copies of a work with the purpose of protecting any of the rights
conferred under the act (i.e, copyright, and performance rights). The
punishment under this provision is imprisonment, which may extend to two
years and payment of a fine. Section 65A was inserted by the Copyright
(Amendment) Act 2012.
- Section 65B makes unauthorised
removal or alteration of ‘rights management information’ punishable with
imprisonment of up to two years and payment of a fine. The provision makes
the unauthorised distribution, broadcast, or communication to the public
of copies of the work punishable in the same manner if the person is aware
that electronic rights management information in the copy has been removed
or altered. Section 65B was inserted by the Copyright (Amendment) Act
2012.
- Section 63A provides for an
enhanced penalty on second or subsequent convictions under section 63 (see
point (1)).
- Other provisions in Chapter 13
provide penalties for offences such as using infringing copies of a
computer program, making, or possessing plates for the purpose of making
infringing copies of works and making false entries in the Register of
Copyrights.[31]
The
2012 amendments to the Copyright Act introduced certain provisions that are
specifically relevant to copyright infringement and the internet. Under the
fair use provisions of the Act, section 52(1)(b) provides that transient or
incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of
electronic transmission or communication to the public does not constitute
infringement of copyright. This provision provides a safe harbor to internet service
providers that may have accidentally stored infringing copies of a work for the
purpose of transmission of data. Section 52(1)(c) further provides that
transient or incidental storage of a work or performance for the purpose of
providing electronic links, access or integration that is not expressly
prohibited by the rightsholder would not be infringement of copyright, unless
the person responsible is aware of infringement or has reasonable grounds for
believing that such storage is that of an infringing copy. Under section
52(1)(c), if the owner of a copyrighted work, in a written complaint to the
person responsible for digitally storing an infringing copy of the work,
complains that such transient or incidental storage is an infringement, then
the person responsible would have to refrain from facilitating access to the
infringing copy of the work for a period of 21 days. If, within 21 days, the
person responsible does not receive an order from a competent court that
directs them to refrain from providing access, then access may be resumed at
the end of that period. Therefore, if A, the owner of a short story, finds that
their short story has been published on the website of B, they may write a
complaint to B declaring that B must refrain from providing the public with
access to A’s short story. B would then have to remove A’s short story from
visibility or accessibility on their website for 21 days, within which time A
must persuade a competent court that it should order the complete removal of
the infringing version or copy of the work. If the court does not issue such an
order within that period of time, then B may resume making the short story
available to the public on their website. This provision was inserted in the
Act by the Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012, which came into force on 21 June
2012. It is yet to be seen in practice.[32]
III.
CONCLUSION
Thus,
Copyright Infringement being a serious issue must be addressed with full vigor.
The laws that have been made up till now must also incorporate the challenges
that are put forward by the issue and development of artificial intelligence
and thus should be ready for future challenges. The effective implementation of
the existing laws is the key to progress and development. Much awareness has to
be spread for the intellectual property rights and artificial intelligence so
that there is no case that goes unaddressed. This will ensure proper
implementation and effective redressal mechanisms in the given field, which
will also prepare India for the future challenges.
[1]
‘What is Intellectual Property’ (World Intellectual Property Organisation)
<https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/> accessed 13 July 2024; V.K. Ahuja, Law Relating
to the Intellectual Property Rights (2007); N.S. Sreenivasulu, Law
Relating to the Intellectual Property Rights (2013); Ronald Rosen,
Music, and Copyright (2008); Brad Sherman, The Making of Modern
Intellectual Property Law (1999); Ronan Deazely, Rethinking Copyright
(2006); K.C. Kailasam, Law of Trademarks: Including International Registration
Under Madrid Protocols
[2] Chandra
Nath Saha and Sanjib Bhattacharya, ‘Intellectual Property Rights: An Overview
and implications in pharmaceutical industry’ (National Library of Medicine,
April 2011) <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217699/#:~:text=Intellectual%20property%20rights%20(IPR)%20refers,a%20given%20period%20of%20time.> accessed 13 July 2024
[3] Georgetown
Law, ‘Intellectual Property Law’ (Georgetown Law)
accessed 13 July 2024
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] ‘What is Copyright’ (U.S
Copyright Office) <
https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/>accessed 13 July, 2024; V.K.
Ahuja, Law of Copyrights and Neighboring Rights: National and International
Perspectives (2007); Abeedha Begum, Indian Internet Copyright Law: With
Special Reference to Author’s Right in the Digital World (2014); N.S.
Sreenivasulu, Intellectual Property Rights (2007); P. Narayanan, Law
of Copyrights and Industrial Designs (1999)
[7] ‘What is Copyright and Copyright
Law’ (Investopedia) <
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/copyright.asp>accessed 13 July 2024
[8] ‘A Handbook of Copyright Law’ (Government
of India-Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade- Ministry for
Commerce and Industry) < https://copyright.gov.in/documents/handbook.html#:~:text=The%20Copyright%20Act%2C%201957%20protects,expressions%20and%20not%20the%20ideas>
accessed 13 July 2024; The Copyrights Act 1957; The Indian Copyright Rules,
1958; ‘The Copyrights’ (World Intellectual Property Organisation) <
https://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/> accessed 13 July 2024; ‘What is
Copyright?- Definitions, Examples and Types’ (The Economic Times) <
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/defaultinterstitial.cms> accessed 13
July 2024
[9] ‘Artificial
Intelligence’ (Investopedia) <https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/artificial-intelligence-ai.asp> accessed 13 July
2024; ‘Artificial Intelligence’ (Medium) <https://medium.com/@ulhaqahtisham419/what-is-artificial-intelligence-ai-9f8124ce5895> accessed 13 July
2024; ‘What is Artificial Intelligence’
(Business Transformation and Operational Excellence) <https://insights.btoes.com/what-is-artificial-intelligence> accessed 13 July
2024; ‘Define Artificial Intelligence’ (Tech Target) <https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/AI-Artificial-Intelligence> accessed 13 July
2024
[10] Max Tegmark, Life 3.0 (2017); Voshua Bengio,
Deep Learning (2015); Nick Bostron, Superintelligence (2014); Brian
Christian, The Alignment Problem (2020); Stuart J. Russell, Human
Compatible (2019); Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence (1995)
[12]‘What
is Generative Ai’ (McKinsey and Company), <https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-generative-ai> accessed 13 July 2024
[14] (IBM), <https://research.ibm.com/blog/what-is-generative-AI> accessed 13 July); Voshua Bengio, Deep Learning (2015); Nick
Bostron, Superintelligence (2014); Brian Christian, The Alignment
Problem (2020); Stuart J. Russell, Human Compatible (2019); Peter Norvig,
Artificial Intelligence (1995)
[15] (LEXISNEXIS),<https://www.lexisnexis.com/html/lexisnexis-generative-ai-story/> accessed 13 July 2024; (SPOTDRAFT),
<https://www.spotdraft.com/blog/ai-due-diligence> accessed 13 July 2024
[16] The Copyrights Act 1957
[17] Ibid
[18] ‘Copyright Infringement’ (Clear
Tax) < https://cleartax.in/s/copyright-infringement> accessed 13 July
2024; What is Copyright’ (U.S Copyright Office) <
https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/>accessed 13 July, 2024; V.K.
Ahuja, Law of Copyrights and Neighboring Rights: National and International
Perspectives (2007); Abeedha Begum, Indian Internet Copyright Law: With
Special Reference to Author’s Right in the Digital World (2014); N.S.
Sreenivasulu, Intellectual Property Rights (2007); P. Narayanan, Law
of Copyrights and Industrial Designs (1999)
[19] Ibid
[21] Copyright Infringement’ (Clear
Tax) < https://cleartax.in/s/copyright-infringement> accessed 13 July
2024
[22] Yashraj Films Private Limited v
Sri Sai Ganesh Productions (AIR 2019 DEL 1017); ‘Yashraj Films Private Limited
V Sri Sai Ganesh Productions’ (Legal Quorum) <
https://thelegalquorum.com/yashraj-films-pvt-ltd-v-sri-sai-ganesh-productions-and-ors-2019/>
accessed 13 July 2024
[23] Yashraj Films Private Limited v
Sri Sai Ganesh Productions (AIR 2019 DEL 1017) < https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175297328/>
accessed 13 July 2024
[24] Hawkins Cokker Limited v Magicooks
Appliances 2002 (100) DLT (698); ‘Delhi High Court Decision’ (J.P.
Associates) < https://jpassociates.co.in/delhi-high-court-decision-hawkins-cookers-ltd-vs-magicook-appliances-co/>
accessed 13 July 2024
[25] Ibid
[26] V.K. Ahuja, ‘Artificial
Intelligence and Copyrights: Issues and Challenges’ (Indian Law Institute
Law Review, Winter Edition 2020) < https://ili.ac.in/pdf/vka.pdf>
accessed 13 July 2024
[27]Ibid
[28] ‘Copyright Infringement and
Remedies’ (Lexology) < https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6526199f-85cd-4291-989d-155a7dc50272>
accessed 13 July 2024
[29] Ibid
[31] Ibid
[32] Copyright Infringement and
Remedies’ (Lexology) <
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6526199f-85cd-4291-989d-155a7dc50272>
accessed 13 July 2024