Dr. Stephen L. Thaler filed an application on 3 May 2022 for registration of copyright in an artistic work titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise<\/em>. The application stated that the work was first published in the United States in 2016 and identified the \u201cDevice for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience,\u201d commonly known as DABUS, as its author.<\/p>\n During examination, the Copyright Office raised objections regarding authorship, originality and ownership. The primary concern was that DABUS was neither a natural person nor a juristic person recognised under Indian law.<\/p>\n The Applicant stated that DABUS comprised interconnected artificial neural networks capable of generating and evaluating concepts. According to him, the system generated the artwork through several computational stages involving training, formation of associations, perturbation, monitoring, stabilisation and output generation.<\/p>\n Dr. Thaler had designed and configured the system. He had also supplied photographs taken by him, curated linguistic inputs comprising thesaurus entries and English sentences, and provided textual descriptions connecting the visual and linguistic material. However, according to the Applicant, DABUS generated the final artwork without a text prompt or real-time human intervention.<\/p>\n During the proceedings, the Applicant was given an opportunity to amend the authorship particulars by identifying Dr. Thaler as the author under Section 2(d)(vi). He declined to do so and continued to insist that DABUS must be recorded as the author.<\/p>\n The questions before the Registrar were:<\/p>\n The Registrar held that originality under Section 13 requires independent creation and a minimal degree of creativity. The work need not be novel, inventive or aesthetically meritorious. At the same time, it must not be copied, commonplace or the inevitable result of a trivial mechanical exercise.<\/p>\n Applying this test, the Registrar found that A Recent Entrance to Paradise<\/em> contained a particular arrangement of visual forms, colours, tonal variations, spatial relationships and compositional elements. The final image was not supplied to DABUS in its completed form, and there was no material showing that it reproduced an identifiable pre-existing work.<\/p>\n The Registrar also distinguished originality from authorship. Section 13 addresses whether the resulting expression possesses sufficient independent creative character. Section 2(d)(vi), on the other hand, identifies the person to whom authorship must be legally attributed.<\/p>\n Therefore, the absence of real-time human intervention during the final computational stage did not, by itself, defeat originality. On the material placed on record, the Registrar held that the artwork crossed the limited originality threshold under Section 13.<\/p>\n Section 2(d)(vi) states that the author of a computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is \u201cthe person who causes the work to be created.\u201d<\/p>\n The Registrar held that this provision distinguishes the technological mechanism that generates an output from the legally recognised person to whom authorship is attributed. The relevant inquiry is not limited to identifying the device that performed the last computational step.<\/p>\n In this case, Dr. Thaler:<\/p>\n Taken cumulatively, these acts established a sufficient and immediate connection between Dr. Thaler and the creation of the work. DABUS generated its final visual form, but Dr. Thaler was the legally recognised person who caused the particular work to be created.<\/p>\n The Registrar therefore rejected the argument that autonomy in execution amounted to legal authorship. As per the order, autonomous operation does not displace the role of the person who designed, configured, supplied and initiated the generative process.<\/p>\n In other words, Section 2(d)(vi) adopts a causation-based standard, not a last-step generation standard.<\/p>\n The Applicant acknowledged that DABUS was not a juristic person capable of owning property, entering into contracts, assigning copyright, enforcing rights or bearing legal obligations.<\/p>\n The Registrar held that DABUS could not be compared with a company recognised as the producer and author of a cinematograph film. A company already possesses juristic personality under law. The Copyright Act does not create legal personality for an AI system merely by recognising computer-generated works.<\/p>\n The analogy with Hindu deities was also rejected. A deity may act through a shebait because Indian law has already recognised the deity as a juristic person for specified purposes. Representation follows legal personality; it does not create it.<\/p>\n DABUS had no corresponding statutory recognition or independent legal capacity. It could therefore not be entered as the author.<\/p>\n Sections 17, 18 and 19 create a continuous statutory chain from authorship to ownership and assignment. Ordinarily, the author is the first owner of copyright. If another person claims ownership, that person must establish either a statutory exception under Section 17 or a valid written assignment under Sections 18 and 19.<\/p>\n The application identified DABUS as the author and Dr. Thaler as the owner. If DABUS were treated as the author, it would have to possess copyright and validly transfer it to Dr. Thaler. That was legally impossible because DABUS had no capacity to own or assign rights.<\/p>\n Ownership of the computer or software did not automatically give Dr. Thaler copyright in every output generated through the system.<\/p>\n Having said that, the Registrar clarified that Dr. Thaler was not incapable of being the first owner. If he were correctly identified as the statutory author under Section 2(d)(vi), Section 17 could ordinarily make him the first owner. The defect arose because the application continued to identify DABUS as author despite an opportunity to amend it.<\/p>\n The Applicant alternatively requested that Dr. Thaler be entered as author while DABUS was officially identified as the generator of the artwork.<\/p>\n The Registrar did not accept this request because it was made conditionally and was not accompanied by corrected particulars or a separately formulated application. The Registrar could not amend the application on the Applicant\u2019s behalf or grant registration on a case that the Applicant had declined to adopt.<\/p>\n The order nevertheless left open the possibility of a separate request identifying DABUS solely as the technological system through which the work was generated. Such a reference cannot confer authorship, ownership or legal personality on DABUS, and any future request would have to be considered independently under the Copyright Act and Rules.<\/p>\n As the Applicant declined to correct the authorship entry and maintained the application exclusively on the premise of AI authorship, the Registrar rejected the application.<\/p>\n On the basis of the technical explanation and material placed on record, and for the limited purpose of the present registration proceedings, the Registrar is satisfied that the resulting composition was not predetermined in its final form and is not shown to reproduce any identified pre-existing work. Its particular visual composition contains at least the minimal degree of expressive creativity required by Eastern Book Company<\/em>. The work accordingly satisfies the requirement of originality under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On the Applicant\u2019s own account, Dr. Thaler conceived and created the system, configured its operation, personally supplied the visual inputs comprising photographs taken by him, curated the linguistic inputs, supplied textual descriptions linking the visual and linguistic material, and initiated the process through which the particular work came into existence. No other natural or juristic person is identified as having undertaken these acts. Dabus, the AI system autonomously generated the artistic work thereafter. Taken cumulatively, these facts establish that Dr. Thaler\u2019s role is not remote but has immediate nexus with the work that was created. Thus, Dr. Thaler is the person who caused this particular work to be created within Section 2(d)(vi), although DABUS performed the immediate computational generation of its final visual form.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The fact that a system operates autonomously after being configured does not alter the identity of the person responsible for bringing the work into existence. Autonomy in execution is not synonymous with conception of a work. A system may independently execute computational processes after activation, yet those processes continue to operate within the architecture, objectives, parameters, training methodology and operational rules established by the person who conceived and configured the system. The autonomy of the process does not displace the causative role of the person who designed and initiated that process.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The claim as presented in the application that DABUS is the author while Dr. Thaler is the owner, cannot be reconciled with Sections 17\u201319 of the Act. If DABUS were assumed to be the author, the Applicant would have to establish either a statutory exception under Section 17 vesting first ownership directly in Dr. Thaler or a valid transfer of copyright under Sections 18 and 19. No such statutory exception or transfer has been established.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The substantive defect in the present application is therefore not that Dr. Thaler could under no circumstances possess title. It is that the verified particulars identify DABUS as author and Dr. Thaler as owner, thereby asserting a legally impossible separation for which no statutory route of vesting or transfer has been shown. The Register cannot contain particulars which the Registrar has found to be legally incorrect.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If the Applicant desires to seek an entry identifying DABUS solely as the technological system through which the work was generated, without attributing authorship, ownership or legal personality to it, it shall be open to the Applicant to make an appropriate application or request in the manner permissible under the Copyright Act and the Copyright Rules and the same would be considered accordingly. The maintainability and merits of any such application or request are expressly left open. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed either as recognising a right to such an entry or as foreclosing the Registrar\u2019s authority to consider a properly formulated request in accordance with law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n For the reasons stated above, it is held that: (i) \u201cA Recent Entrance to Paradise<\/em>\u201d satisfies the limited threshold of originality under Section 13 on the material presently placed before the Registrar; (ii) DABUS is not a natural or juristic person recognised in law and cannot be entered as author under Section 2(d)(vi); (iii) On the Applicant\u2019s own factual account, Dr. Stephen L. Thaler is the legally recognised person who caused the particular work to be created and is therefore the person capable of being identified as its statutory author; (iv) the particulars presently contained in the application, identifying DABUS as author and Dr. Thaler as owner, are legally inconsistent with Sections 2(d)(vi) and 17\u201319 and cannot be entered in the Register; and (v) no descriptive reference to DABUS can confer upon it the legal status of author or cure an application which continues to identify DABUS as author. It is notable that during the hearing, an option was given to make correction in the entry against \u201cauthor\u201d – the Applicant declined to amend the author entry and continued to insist on DABUS as author. (vi) Legislative Prerogative: Whether legal personhood or authorship should ever be extended to autonomous artificial intelligence remains a policy decision strictly reserved for Parliament, and cannot be introduced via administrative reinterpretation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Since the application, as verified and maintained, seeks registration upon the legally untenable basis that DABUS is the author, Diary No. 9356\/2022-CO\/A is rejected. This rejection does not preclude Dr. Stephen L. Thaler from pursuing such remedy as may be available in law on the basis of particulars correctly identifying the author and the corresponding basis of ownership. Rejection is not being ordered merely because the application initially contained incorrect particulars. It follows because the incorrect identification of the author remains the Applicant\u2019s deliberate and continuing case despite notice, hearing and an express opportunity to amend. The Registrar cannot register an application containing particulars that have been found to be legally inconsistent, nor can the Registrar compel the Applicant to seek registration on a basis that he has declined to adopt.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nQuestions Before the Registrar<\/h2>\n
\n
Arguments Presented by the Applicant<\/h2>\n
\n
Submissions of the Amicus Curiae<\/h2>\n
\n
Originality of the AI-Generated Artwork<\/h2>\n
Who Caused the Work to Be Created?<\/h2>\n
\n
DABUS Is Not a Legal Person<\/h2>\n
The Broken Chain from Authorship to Ownership<\/h2>\n
Can DABUS Be Mentioned as the Technological Generator?<\/h2>\n
Findings<\/h2>\n
\n
Relevant Paragraphs<\/h2>\n
Paragraph 48<\/h3>\n
Paragraph 107<\/h3>\n
Paragraph 111<\/h3>\n
Paragraph 164<\/h3>\n
Paragraph 167<\/h3>\n
Paragraph 183<\/h3>\n
Paragraph 189<\/h3>\n
Paragraph 190<\/h3>\n
Case Citation<\/h2>\n