Generative AI & Copyright – One Nation, One License, One Payment
Kartavya Desk Staff
Source: HT
Subject: Government Policies and Interventions for Development in various sectors
Context: The Government released the Working Paper on Generative AI & Copyright – One Nation, One License, One Payment, proposing India’s first structured model for regulating AI training on copyrighted works.
• It aims to balance creator rights and AI innovation, following rising disputes like ANI vs OpenAI (Delhi HC, 2024–25) over unauthorized training on Indian content.
About Generative AI & Copyright – One Nation, One License, One Payment:
What is the Issue?
• Unlicensed use of Indian creative content for AI training: GenAI models scrape Indian books, articles, films, music and news without permission, undermining creator rights and violating Section 14 protections.
Eg: ANI alleged OpenAI used its news content for training ChatGPT without consent, triggering Delhi HC proceedings.
• Lack of clarity on applicability of copyright law to GenAI training: India’s Copyright Act has no explicit Text & Data Mining (TDM) exception, creating ambiguity on whether large-scale scraping is permissible.
Eg: Section 52 exceptions do not cover commercial AI training, leaving foreign AI developers operating in a legal grey zone.
• No mechanism for creators to receive compensation from AI usage: Indian writers, artists, musicians and journalists gain nothing even though their works significantly improve AI model accuracy and quality.
Eg: India’s informal music industry employing 1.4 crore people earns zero royalties despite models using their songs for training.
• Risk of cultural dilution & decline of indigenous creative sectors: AI outputs may replace or overshadow Indian folk art, local music and regional storytelling traditions, eroding cultural diversity.
• Unequal bargaining power between big-tech AI firms and Indian creators: Large foreign AI companies monetise Indian datasets while individual creators lack negotiation capacity or legal tools to protect rights.
Eg: OpenAI itself stated India is its 2nd-largest market, yet no Indian creator currently receives any share of this revenue.
Key Concerns Identified by the Working Group:
• Whether AI training constitutes reproduction and thus copyright infringement: AI training requires copying, storing and transforming large volumes of works, which may trigger infringement under Section 14.
Eg: Delhi High Court is examining if ChatGPT’s use of ANI’s content amounts to unauthorised reproduction.
• Whether the ‘fair dealing’ exception can legally cover GenAI training: Fair dealing is narrowly defined for private research, criticism, or reporting—not for commercial AI model training at industrial scale.
Eg: Commercial LLM developers cannot invoke Section 52(1)(a), as training is revenue-driven and not “personal use”.
• Disadvantage & exploitation risk for small and independent creators: Opt-out or negotiated licensing frameworks disproportionately favour big publishers, leaving small creators unprotected.
• Heavy transparency burden on AI developers if disclosure is mandated: Requiring detailed dataset disclosures could slow AI advancement, especially for start-ups lacking compliance capacity.
Eg: IndiaAI-supported startups like Sarvam and Gan AI rely on flexible data access to compete with global players.
• Threat of poor-quality or biased datasets if creators withhold works: Excessive opt-outs may shrink datasets, increasing bias and hallucination risks in India-focused AI systems.
Need for India to Balance Copyright & AI Framework:
• Protect India’s rapidly growing creative and cultural economy: Creative industries contribute billions to GDP and sustain livelihoods across entertainment, design, folk and digital media sectors.
Eg: India’s M&E sector is projected to reach $36B by 2027, making protection of creative rights economically essential.
• Foster AI innovation aligned with IndiaAI Mission goals: Balanced rules ensure that AI developers—especially Indian start-ups—have predictable, lawful access to high-quality datasets.
Eg: IndiaAI Mission’s rollout of 38,000 subsidised GPUs depends on a stable legal framework for training data.
• Prevent decline of human creativity and preserve cultural diversity: If AI freely mines creative works without reward, long-term incentives for creators weaken, risking cultural hollowing.
Eg: PM Modi’s ‘Orange Economy’ vision stresses India’s unique storytelling heritage that must be preserved in the AI era.
• Ensure fair revenue-sharing for Indian creators whose works train AI: AI firms earn from Indian users; creators deserve statutory royalties to maintain creative ecosystems. Eg: OpenAI confirmed India is its 2nd-largest market—yet creators receive zero compensation today.
• Support Indian startups & MSMEs with low-cost, low-friction AI licensing: A predictable licensing regime reduces transaction costs and enables small players to innovate without legal uncertainty.
Recommendations of the Working Committee:
• Introduce a Mandatory Blanket License for AI Training: AI developers may train on all lawfully accessed copyrighted works without individual permissions, ensuring wide dataset access.
Eg: Indian LLMs (Sarvam, Gan AI, Soket) can legally train on diverse Indian content across languages and formats.
• Statutory Royalty Payments to Copyright Holders: Creators will receive compensation proportional to AI revenues, ensuring long-term sustenance of the creative economy.
Eg: India’s 1.4 crore informal music workers would gain an organised income stream from AI-driven usage.
• Establish the “Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training (CRCAT)”: A central, government-designated body to collect licence fees and distribute royalties to members and non-members alike.
• Create a Government-Appointed Royalty Rate-Setting Committee: Ensures transparency, fairness, periodic review and judicial oversight of royalty rates to protect both creators and developers.
• Provide a Single-Window, Low-Burden Licensing & Compliance System: One licence → one payment → nationwide applicability to reduce friction, especially for smaller AI players.
Conclusion:
India stands at a critical intersection where AI growth and creative rights must advance together. The “One Nation, One License, One Payment” model proposes a fair, innovation-friendly, creator-protective solution. If adopted, it can make India a global leader by building an AI ecosystem rooted in fairness, cultural respect, and technological strength.
Secure Link: https://www.insightsonindia.com/2023/10/03/q5-introduce-the-concept-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-how-does-ai-help-clinical-diagnosis-do-you-perceive-any-threat-to-privacy-of-the-individual-in-the-use-of-ai-in-the-healthcare-answer/