Copyright Office rules AI system DABUS cannot be an author in India
Where it stands
On 31 August 2026 Registrar of Copyrights Unnat P Pandit decided an application by US computer scientist Stephen Thaler. Thaler asked the Copyright Office to register the artwork "A Recent Entrance to Paradise". Thaler named his AI system DABUS as author and himself as owner. The Registrar held that the artwork is original under Section 13 of the Copyright Act. The Registrar held that DABUS cannot be an author. Section 2(d)(vi) covers computer-generated works. The author is the person who causes the work to be created. The Registrar found that Thaler is that person. DABUS is not a person in law. Only Parliament can give legal status to an AI system. Thaler declined to name himself as author. The Copyright Office rejected the application as filed.
Background
Copyright is the right to control copies of a work. India's rules are in the Copyright Act, 1957. Parliament added Section 2(d)(vi) through the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994. The clause covers computer-generated works. The author of such a work is the person who causes the work to be created. Under Section 17 the author is normally the first owner. In November 2020 the Copyright Office registered the artwork "Suryast" with the RAGHAV app as co-author. On 25 November 2021 the Copyright Office sent a withdrawal notice for that entry. Thaler filed his DABUS application in 2022. The application then waited nearly four years.
How it developed
-
2018 to December 2023How it started
How Thaler's DABUS campaign began around the world
Stephen Thaler built DABUS in the United States. From 2018 Thaler filed patent applications in many countries. The applications named DABUS as the inventor. On 28 July 2021 South Africa published a patent naming DABUS as inventor. South Africa does not examine patents on merit. In Australia a single judge accepted DABUS as inventor on 30 July 2021. The Full Federal Court reversed that ruling in April 2022. The European Patent Office's appeal board refused DABUS on 21 December 2021. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit refused DABUS on 5 August 2022. The US Supreme Court declined that case on 24 April 2023. The UK Supreme Court dismissed Thaler's appeal on 20 December 2023.
-
2 March 2026New fact
US Supreme Court declines Thaler's appeal on the same artwork
Thaler applied to the US Copyright Office on 19 May 2019 for the same artwork. Thaler named his AI, there called the Creativity Machine, as author. The US Copyright Office refused registration. On 18 March 2025 the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld the refusal. The DC Circuit held that the US Copyright Act requires a human author. On 2 March 2026 the US Supreme Court declined to hear Thaler's appeal.
-
9 April 2026New fact
Delhi High Court tells the Copyright Office to decide within eight weeks
In July 2023 the Copyright Office asked Thaler to name a natural person as author. The office fixed a hearing for 5 March 2024. Thaler then heard nothing for two years. Thaler moved the Delhi High Court for a direction. On 9 April 2026 Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted a fresh hearing fixed for 27 April 2026. The judge directed the Registrar to decide preferably within eight weeks from that hearing.
-
31 August 2026Settled
Registrar finds the artwork original but refuses DABUS as author
On 31 August 2026 Registrar of Copyrights Unnat P Pandit passed the final order. The Registrar found the artwork original under Section 13. The Registrar held that Thaler, not DABUS, caused the work to be created under Section 2(d)(vi). Without legal personality, DABUS could not pass ownership to Thaler under Sections 17 to 19. Thaler declined an offer to name himself as author. The Copyright Office rejected the application in its existing form.
Why it matters for UPSC
The topic sits in General Studies Paper 2 (governance and law) and Paper 3 (intellectual property rights and AI). Keep two tests apart. Originality asks whether the work is copied or trivial. Authorship asks which person in law made the work. India and the United States now differ. US courts refused copyright for the same artwork. US law requires a human author. India's Registrar found the artwork original. The Registrar named Thaler as the person who caused the work. The order comes from the Registrar, not from a court.
Key terms
Sources (11)
- UK Supreme Court · official · Thaler (Appellant) v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (Respondent) [2023] UKSC 49, judgment 20 December 20232 Sep, 4:05 am
- ThePrint · If AI creates, who is the author? A US researcher's legal challenge to copyright laws & the India link2 Sep, 4:45 am
- US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · official · Thaler v. Vidal, No. 21-2347, opinion decided 5 August 20222 Sep, 4:20 am
- US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit · official · Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233, opinion decided 18 March 20252 Sep, 4:25 am
- Supreme Court of the United States · official · Docket No. 25-449, Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter: petition denied 2 March 20262 Sep, 4:35 am
- Bar and Bench · Can AI artwork get copyright? Delhi High Court orders Copyright Office decision on Stephen Thaler plea in 8 weeks2 Sep, 4:15 am
- Business Standard · Delhi HC sets deadline for copyright office to register AI artwork2 Sep, 4:15 am
- ThePrint · AI-generated art covered by India's copyright law? Delhi HC gives copyright office 8 weeks to decide2 Sep, 4:45 am
- Business Standard · Copyright Office rejects AI system DABUS as author under Indian law2 Sep, 4:05 am
- Bar and Bench · AI-generated work can get copyright but AI system cannot be author: Indian copyright office2 Sep, 4:15 am
- SCC Online · Original, yes. Author, no: Copyright Office rejects AI authorship, but not AI-generated art (1 September 2026)2 Sep, 5:10 am