THE AI AUTHORSHIP PARADOX: NAVIGATING COPYRIGHT LAW IN THE AGE OF GENERATIVE SYSTEMS
AUTHOR – SUPRIYA IVATURY, STUDENT AT CHRIST UNIVERSITY
BEST CITATION – SUPRIYA IVATURY, THE AI AUTHORSHIP PARADOX: NAVIGATING COPYRIGHT LAW IN THE AGE OF GENERATIVE SYSTEMS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 149-156, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.
ABSTRACT
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems, and generative AI in particular, are expanding exponentially, posing unprecedented challenges to the premises of copyright law. Modern AI can independently produce literary works, music, computer-generated art, screenplays, and even complicated computer code, which are almost indistinguishable when compared to human-generated expression. Postmodern trends interfere with the conventional concept of copyright that has traditionally been based on human authorship, intellectual labour, and individual creative expression. With the increasing involvement of AI in the process of creating expressive works, the fundamental principles of the field, including authorship, originality, ownership, infringement, moral rights, and liability, are on the urgent agenda.
This paper critically analyses the effect of AI on the copyright law based on the doctrinal, comparative, and policy analyses. It examines how the human authorship requirement has been embedded into the big copyright regimes and whether AI-generated works can meet the set originality requirements. The paper goes further to discuss the controversial question of AI training datasets, whether the massive replication of copyrighted materials to feed machine learning algorithms is infringement or falls under the fair use or text and data mining exception of the current statutory frameworks. Moreover, the paper deals with the liability distribution in cases when AI systems produce results that are similar to copyrighted works, as well as evaluating the possible liability of developers, users, and companies.
With comparative analysis of legal strategies in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and India, the paper shows that there are no harmonized global reactions to AI-driven creativity. Whereas certain jurisdictions focus on rigorous human authorship qualification, others are trying to find statutory accommodation of computer-generated works, which creates doctrinal conflicts and regulatory vagueness. The paper insists that the current copyright regimes are structurally unsatisfactory to deal with autonomous generative systems in the absence of legislative clarification.
Finally, the present paper suggests a moderate model of reform that does not hinder the incentive system of human inventors but encourages responsible technological innovations. It proposes the legal recognition of human creative input of meaningful value, more explicit control of AI training activities, proportional liability, and increased international collaboration. Copyright law can be adjusted to our times by balancing innovation and protection to keep its essence, which is to facilitate creativity to the advantage of our society.