On August 31, 2026, the Registrar of Copyrights, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Prof. (Dr.) Unnat P. Pandit, issued a 48-page order in Diary No. 9356/2022-CO/A, rejecting the copyright application filed by Dr. Stephen L. Thaler for the artistic work titled A Recent Entrance To Paradise. The application named an artificial intelligence system, DABUS (‘Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience’), as author, with Dr. Thaler as copyright owner. This marks the first formal administrative ruling by the Indian Copyright Office on whether autonomous AI systems can claim statutory authorship under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The Registrar held that while algorithmically produced visual outputs can satisfy originality under Section 13, statutory authorship under Section 2(d)(vi) is strictly confined to legal persons. Asserting ownership from a non-human author violates Sections 17 to 19, and granting legal personhood to artificial intelligence remains an exclusive legislative prerogative of Parliament.
Factual and Procedural Background
New to Copyright Law? Start with our complete Copyright Law Guide.
Dr. Stephen L. Thaler filed Application Diary No. 9356/2022-CO/A on May 3, 2022, under Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, seeking registration of an artistic work titled A Recent Entrance To Paradise. The Statement of Particulars declared first publication in 2016 in the United States. The application listed DABUS as author and Dr. Thaler as owner, asserting that DABUS generated the artwork autonomously through artificial neural networks without human aesthetic intervention or prompting.
Following examination, the Copyright Office issued discrepancy and objection notices under Sections 2(d)(vi), 13, 17, and 18. The Registrar appointed Ms. Rajeshwari Hariharan, Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae on May 13, 2026. Oral hearings took place on April 29, May 25, and June 24, 2026, where the applicant was represented by advocates Mr. Ankit Sahani, Mr. Chirag Ahluwalia, Mr. Aman Sinha, and Mr. Goldie Dhama, with Dr. Ryan Abbott.
Technical Operation of DABUS and Framed Issues
DABUS operates as a connectionist neural architecture through four stages: training neural modules on visual photographs and linguistic datasets, forming associative structures linking inputs with conceptual descriptors, introducing internal perturbations to generate candidate pathways, and stabilizing a selected pattern into the final visual output. The applicant argued that because DABUS executed this stabilization autonomously, it was the immediate creator of the artwork.
The Registrar framed four legal issues for determination:
- Issue A: Whether A Recent Entrance to Paradise satisfies originality under Section 13.
- Issue B: Who is ‘the person who causes the work to be created’ under Section 2(d)(vi).
- Issue C: Whether Dr. Thaler’s claim of ownership aligns with Sections 17 to 19.
- Issue D: Whether DABUS may be recorded in the Register of Copyrights merely as the technological generator.
Issue A: Originality under Section 13 and the Modak Standard
The Copyright Office initially questioned whether an autonomous computational output could satisfy Section 13 absent conscious human aesthetic design. The Registrar evaluated the Indian standard of originality established in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1.
Under Modak, Indian copyright law rejects both ‘sweat of the brow’ and novel creativity standards. Protection requires independent creation accompanied by an exercise of skill and judgment that is not purely mechanical, displaying a minimal degree of creativity. The Registrar held that originality concerns the objective expressive form rather than the subjective consciousness of the author.
The Registrar found that A Recent Entrance To Paradise presents an identifiable arrangement of visual forms and colors not copied from pre-existing materials. Algorithmic processing does not strip an expression of originality. Where a human curates datasets, configures neural networks, and initiates the process, the non-predetermined expression crosses the Section 13 threshold. The Registrar resolved this issue in favor of the applicant.
Issue B: Authorship under Section 2(d)(vi) and the Meaning of ‘Person’
Section 2(d)(vi) provides that in relation to any computer-generated work, the author is ‘the person who causes the work to be created’. Dr. Thaler argued that DABUS was the immediate cause of the artwork, that ‘person’ in the General Clauses Act, 1897 includes artificial entities, and cited analogies to film producers under Section 2(d)(v), Hindu deities, and a February 2024 Press Information Bureau (PIB) parliamentary statement. The Registrar rejected these arguments on three grounds:
1. Legal Personality is an Indispensable Requirement
The Registrar held that ‘person’ across the Copyright Act refers exclusively to natural persons and juristic persons recognized by law, such as companies. An author must possess legal capacity to hold property, exercise exclusive rights under Section 14, enforce moral rights under Section 57, and execute contracts. Section 22 calculates copyright term based on the author’s life plus sixty years. An artificial intelligence software suite lacks legal personality, civil rights, duties, and juridical will, making it incapable of holding authorship.
2. The Effective Cause and Mastermind Test
Construing ‘the person who causes the work to be created’, the Registrar held that copyright law looks to the mastermind or effective cause behind creation rather than the computational tool. Tracing Section 2(d)(vi) to Section 9(3) of the UK CDPA 1988, and citing Express Newspapers (1985), Nova Productions (2007), Burrow-Giles (1884), and Aalmuhammed (2000), the Registrar held that the author is the human who conceives the project, designs the network, curates training data, and initiates execution. The Act does not recognize divisions between ‘upstream’ and ‘immediate’ causes. Dr. Thaler was the sole legal person whose actions caused the work to exist, making him the statutory author under Section 2(d)(vi).
3. Rejection of Producer, Deity, and PIB Analogies
The Registrar held that Section 2(d)(v) producer status applies to incorporated companies possessing recognized legal personality and cannot manufacture personhood for software. The Registrar also dismissed the Hindu deity analogy, holding that procedural representation cannot create substantive legal personhood where none exists. Finally, the Registrar clarified that the February 2024 PIB statement affirmed that the existing framework protects AI outputs by vesting authorship in the human person who deployed the AI tool, not in the machine.
Issue C: First Ownership under Sections 17 to 19
Dr. Thaler claimed first ownership while naming DABUS as author, arguing that copyright vested in him automatically under general property principles without an assignment deed. The Registrar rejected this contention under the Copyright Act. Under Section 17, the author is the first owner of copyright, subject to narrow statutory exceptions. Outside these exceptions, ownership must devolve through a valid written assignment under Sections 18 and 19. Because DABUS lacks legal personality, it cannot hold copyright at creation and cannot execute an assignment deed. Naming an entity incapable of holding rights as author while asserting derivative ownership creates an irreconcilable statutory contradiction. Had Dr. Thaler named himself as author under Section 2(d)(vi), first ownership would have vested in him directly under Section 17.
Issue D: Rejection of Remarks Column Compromise and Final Order
The applicant proposed recording Dr. Thaler as author under Section 2(d)(vi), accompanied by an official remark in the Register of Copyrights stating that the work was generated by DABUS. The Registrar rejected this submission, explaining that the Register of Copyrights is a statutory public record establishing legal certainty for licensing and enforcement. The remarks column cannot be used as an informal provenance log or to confer backdoor legal recognition on software. Administrative authorities cannot make suo motu amendments contrary to the applicant’s deliberate declarations.
In paragraph 189, the Registrar recorded the formal findings:
- A Recent Entrance to Paradise satisfies originality under Section 13 based on its non-predetermined expressive composition.
- DABUS is not a natural or juristic person and cannot be entered as author under Section 2(d)(vi).
- Dr. Stephen L. Thaler is the legally recognized person who caused the work to be created and is eligible for statutory authorship under Section 2(d)(vi).
- Listing DABUS as author and Dr. Thaler as owner is legally incompatible with Sections 17 to 19.
- The remarks column cannot record non-statutory technological provenance.
- Granting legal personhood or authorship to artificial intelligence remains an exclusive legislative prerogative reserved for Parliament.
Because the applicant maintained the application exclusively on the premise of AI authorship, the Registrar rejected Application Diary No. 9356/2022-CO/A under Section 45. The order does not preclude Dr. Thaler from filing a fresh application properly identifying the natural author and lawful basis of ownership.
Also Read: Zee Entertainment v. BSNL: Madras High Court Permits Withdrawal of Copyright Suit
Key Legal Takeaways for IP Practitioners
The DABUS ruling establishes three key principles for Indian copyright law. First, algorithmic generation does not bar copyright protection under Section 13 where the output exhibits non-trivial skill and judgment and is not a mechanical copy of pre-existing materials. Second, Section 2(d)(vi) functions as a human attribution mechanism, vesting authorial rights in the natural person who curated inputs, configured the neural architecture, and initiated the creative process. Third, the ruling upholds the structural integrity of Sections 17 to 19, ensuring that the Register of Copyrights reflects valid chains of title and enforceable property rights.
Order Summary:
- Matter: Application for Registration of Copyright in Artistic Work titled A Recent Entrance To Paradise
- Diary Number: 9356/2022-CO/A
- Authority: The Registrar of Copyrights, Copyright Office, DPIIT, New Delhi
- Presiding Officer: Prof. (Dr.) Unnat P. Pandit, Registrar of Copyrights
- Applicant: Dr. Stephen L. Thaler
- Represented by: Mr. Ankit Sahani, Mr. Chirag Ahluwalia, Mr. Aman Sinha, Mr. Goldie Dhama, advocates, with Dr. Ryan Abbott
- Amicus Curiae: Ms. Rajeshwari Hariharan, Senior Advocate
- Date of Order: August 31, 2026
- Key Provisions: Sections 2(d)(v), 2(d)(vi), 2(uu), 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 22, 45, 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897
- Operative Result: Application Rejected under Section 45
