India AI copyright law mandates royalties for AI training. DPIIT’s hybrid model impacts OpenAI, Google & millions of creators. Full breakdown inside.

India AI Copyright Law: The Framework That Could Reshape Global AI Economics

Your creative work might already be training AI models—without your permission or payment. India’s new AI copyright law proposal changes that equation entirely, forcing tech giants to compensate creators for the first time.

The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) released its groundbreaking working paper on December 8, 2025. This India AI copyright law framework introduces mandatory licensing requiring companies like OpenAI and Google to pay royalties. The consultation period closes January 7, 2026.

Key Takeaways:

• India AI copyright law mandates blanket licensing for all AI training data
• Royalties paid only upon commercialization through centralized body (CRCAT)
• No opt-out rights for creators under proposed India AI copyright law
• Retroactive obligations apply to existing AI models
• 30-day public consultation window closing soon

India confirmed its position as OpenAI’s second-largest market globally. This makes the India AI copyright law proposal significant for international tech operations. The framework could set precedent for AI regulation worldwide.

Why This India AI Copyright Law Matters Now

Courts across India are already grappling with AI-related disputes. The Delhi High Court is hearing Asian News International’s lawsuit against OpenAI. Multiple Bollywood celebrities have secured injunctions against deepfakes.

The India AI copyright law addresses a fundamental problem. Current Copyright Act 1957 contains no AI-specific provisions. This 68-year-old legislation predates the digital era entirely.

Unlike US fair use doctrine or EU transparency requirements, the India AI copyright law takes a different path. It mandates that all AI developers access copyrighted works through blanket licenses. This “hybrid model” combines guaranteed access with mandatory compensation.

What makes this approach unique?

The India AI copyright law doesn’t force creators to negotiate individually with tech giants. Instead, a centralized body handles licensing and distribution. This levels the playing field for independent creators against billion-dollar companies.

How the India AI Copyright Law ‘Hybrid Model’ Actually Works

The DPIIT’s working paper outlines a structured approach to AI training compensation. Understanding this India AI copyright law framework requires examining its core components.

Step 1: AI companies access copyrighted content under blanket license

The India AI copyright law permits AI developers to use lawfully accessed content for training. This eliminates the need for individual negotiations with millions of creators.

Step 2: Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training (CRCAT) administers system

This centralized body becomes the single point of contact under India AI copyright law. CRCAT collects royalties and distributes them to registered copyright holders.

Step 3: Royalties become payable upon commercialization

Here’s the critical distinction in India AI copyright law. Companies don’t pay during the training phase. Payment obligations trigger only when they commercialize AI products.

Step 4: Government committee sets royalty rates

The India AI copyright law establishes a government-appointed panel for rate-setting. These rates face mandatory review every three years.

Step 5: Retroactive obligations for existing models

Companies with already-trained AI models aren’t exempt. The India AI copyright law imposes retrospective royalty requirements.

5 Critical Gaps Legal Experts Found in India AI Copyright Law

Despite its ambitious scope, the India AI copyright law contains significant blind spots. Legal analysts have identified fundamental issues requiring resolution.

Gap #1: AI Authorship Remains Undefined

Can AI be an “author” under Indian law? The India AI copyright law doesn’t answer this. Current legislation requires human creators for copyright protection. This creates a legal vacuum for AI-generated content ownership.

Gap #2: Royalty Rights Cover Limited Categories

Section 18 of existing law only covers literary and musical works in films or recordings. Artistic works, photographs, and standalone literary works fall outside. The India AI copyright law needs expanded coverage.

Gap #3: Personality Rights Get No Framework

The Tilly Norwood case highlights this problem. Particle6 Studios created an “AI actress” allegedly based on Scottish performer Briony Monroe. The India AI copyright law offers no protection against such unauthorized AI persona creation.

Ashwini Kumar from My Legal Expert warns the India AI copyright law “forces creators to give up the power to refuse their works for training.”

Gap #4: Liability Attribution Unclear

When AI generates infringing content, who’s responsible? The India AI copyright law identifies three potential defendants: AI platform, developer, or user. But it doesn’t clarify responsibility allocation.

Gap #5: Jurisdictional Enforcement Challenges

How does India AI copyright law apply to companies operating outside India? Training and hosting occur globally. Enforcement mechanisms for royalty collection remain undefined.

Celebrity Deepfake Crisis Driving India AI Copyright Law Urgency

The personality rights gap in India AI copyright law hasn’t stopped courts from acting. Multiple high-profile cases demonstrate the urgency.

Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc. (2025): Legendary singer secured injunction against AI voice cloning. This case influenced India AI copyright law discussions significantly.

Suniel Shetty (October 2025): Bombay High Court recognized personality rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. This expanded the legal framework beyond traditional India AI copyright law provisions.

Anil Kapoor Case: Actor obtained comprehensive protection against AI-generated impersonations. Courts acknowledged digital identity as worthy of protection under emerging India AI copyright law interpretations.

R. Madhavan Case: Delhi HC restrained AI-generated deepfake trailers and pornographic content using the actor’s likeness.

These cases show courts filling gaps the India AI copyright law hasn’t addressed. Personality rights now receive protection through constitutional provisions and privacy frameworks.

Tech Industry vs. Creators: Battle Lines Over India AI Copyright Law

The proposed India AI copyright law has sparked intense stakeholder debate. Positions remain sharply divided.

Tech Industry Position:

BSA (representing Google, Microsoft, Amazon, IBM) advocates for opt-out text-and-data mining exceptions. They argue mandatory licensing under India AI copyright law may reduce AI model quality.

Nasscom warns the India AI copyright law could harm startups. Compliance costs and mandatory royalties increase barriers to entry. Limited datasets also increase bias risks in AI systems.

Creators’ Position:

Publishers and media bodies oppose opt-out approaches entirely. They demand fair compensation for unauthorized use under India AI copyright law. Concerns exist that AI-generated substitutes will destroy content economics.

Legal Community Assessment:

Rishi Agrawal from TeamLease RegTech praises the India AI copyright law. He says the framework “recognises a basic truth that has been ignored for years: creators deserve to be paid.”

Others express concern. Authors Rajesh Kumar and Akanksha Badika argue India AI copyright law should preserve creator autonomy through opt-in models.

How India AI Copyright Law Compares Globally

Understanding India AI copyright law requires international context. Each major economy takes a different approach.

United States: Relies on transformative fair use defense. No federal AI-specific legislation exists. Courts determine cases individually. Multiple lawsuits pending, including New York Times and Getty Images against AI companies.

European Union: AI Act mandates transparency and labeling. Text-and-data-mining exception includes machine-readable opt-outs. Strong GDPR integration. Risk-based compliance tiers.

China: Interim Measures place burden on AI providers. Explicit consent required for personal data. Mandatory labeling of AI-generated content under Deep Synthesis regulations.

India AI Copyright Law Distinction: India becomes the only major economy proposing mandatory blanket licensing. This hybrid approach—combining compulsory access with royalty payments—differs fundamentally from US, EU, and Chinese models.

What Happens Next for India AI Copyright Law

The India AI copyright law consultation period closes January 7, 2026. Several developments will follow.

For AI Companies:

• Prepare for potential royalty obligations under India AI copyright law
• Retroactive payments for existing models possible
• Compliance costs may increase significantly
• OpenAI CEO Sam Altman acknowledged India as critical market

For Creators:

• Guaranteed income stream if commercialization occurs under India AI copyright law
• Loss of opt-out rights represents significant trade-off
• Registration requirements for royalty collection apply
• Distribution fairness remains uncertain

For Startups:

• Reduced transaction costs versus individual licensing
• Single-window access to training data under India AI copyright law
• But mandatory royalties upon launch may increase barriers
• Level playing field argument remains contested

Expert Recommendations for India AI Copyright Law Improvement

Legal analysts suggest several modifications to strengthen the India AI copyright law framework:

1. Adopt opt-in licensing preserving creator autonomy
2. Establish performer consent registry for personality rights
3. Expand Section 18 royalty rights to all work categories
4. Create statutory framework for personality rights under India AI copyright law
5. Clarify liability attribution between platform, developer, and user
6. Implement machine-readable metadata standards for opt-outs
7. Add mandatory disclosure and labeling requirements
8. Define AI authorship explicitly in legislation

The Bottom Line on India AI Copyright Law

The India AI copyright law proposal represents India’s ambitious attempt to balance innovation with creator rights. Billions in AI investments and millions of creators’ livelihoods hang in the balance.

Whether India AI copyright law succeeds depends on details yet finalized. Rate-setting mechanisms, enforcement protocols, and authorship definitions require resolution. Part II of the working paper—addressing AI-generated content copyrightability—remains pending.

Your next step: Submit feedback to DPIIT at ipr7-dipp@gov.in before January 7, 2026. Review the full India AI copyright law working paper on the DPIIT website. If you’re a creator, consider registering your works with the copyright office now.

Here’s your challenge: Search your name or creative work plus “AI training” online. You might discover your content is already training models. The India AI copyright law could determine whether you get compensated—or continue being used without payment.

What do you think? Should creators have opt-out rights under India AI copyright law, or does mandatory licensing serve everyone better? The framework India chooses could shape global AI regulation for decades.

EXTERNAL LINKS:-

DPIIT Official Working Paper (Primary Source)

https://www.dpiit.gov.in

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) AI Resources

https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/artificial_intelligence/

Delhi High Court Judgments Database

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in