Delhi HC on AI Authorship — Can DABUS Claim Copyright? IP Law Analysis

CURRENT AFFAIRS | 10 APRIL 2026

CLAT GK + INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

Delhi HC to Decide: Can an AI System Be the Sole Author of an Artwork?

In a case that could reshape the contours of intellectual property law in India, the Delhi High Court is set to decide whether an AI system can claim sole authorship rights for an artwork under the Copyright Act 1957. The case involves DABUS (Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), an AI system built by American computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who has been on a global mission to obtain authorship rights for his “autonomous” AI.

The Background: A Four-Year Legal Odyssey

Thaler applied to the Register of Copyrights in India seeking copyright registration for an artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”, claiming DABUS as the sole author. The Copyright Office, which administers the Copyright Act 1957, issued a discrepancy letter, maintaining that creative works require human authorship. After the application remained pending for over 4 years, Thaler moved the Delhi High Court.

The court has now directed the Copyright Office to dispose of the discrepancy letter within 8 weeks from April 27, with a hearing scheduled for that date.

The Core Legal Question: Who Is an “Author”?

At the heart of this dispute lies Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act 1957, which defines “author” in relation to different types of works. For literary works, the “author” is simply described as “the author of the work” — a circular definition that has traditionally been interpreted to mean a human being. The Copyright Office argues that DABUS, being an artificial neural network, cannot satisfy this requirement.

Thaler’s counter-argument is that DABUS “autonomously generates novel ideas” through its neural network architecture and that denying authorship to AI systems would create an IP vacuum for an increasingly significant category of creative output.

The Global Context: DABUS Everywhere

This is not an isolated case. In November 2020, the US Copyright Office approached 16 jurisdictions worldwide to examine the question of AI authorship. Thaler has also sought patent rights for DABUS as an inventor under patent law — a parallel battle that has seen mixed results globally:

• US: Copyright Office rejected AI authorship; requires “human authorship”
• UK: Supreme Court rejected DABUS as patent inventor
• Australia: Initially recognised, then overturned on appeal
• South Africa: Granted patent with DABUS listed as inventor (an outlier)

Implications for CLAT Aspirants

This case sits at the frontier of IP law, technology regulation, and constitutional rights. As AI-generated content becomes ubiquitous — from art to music to literature — the legal framework will need to evolve. The Delhi HC’s decision could set a significant precedent for how India approaches this question, potentially influencing the Berne Convention interpretation and WIPO treaty obligations.