SearchTodayMainsPrelimsSubjectCSAT

Restoring Balance to Copyright Laws in India

Addressing the rigidities of copyright laws to promote access, creativity, and technological progress.
G
Gopi
••6 mins read
Rethinking Copyright in the Age of AI: Balancing Innovation, Access, and the Commons
Not Started

1. Copyright and the Right to Read: The Accessibility Question

Copyright law, originally designed to incentivise creativity, has often conflicted with the rights of persons with disabilities. Visually impaired individuals historically faced legal barriers in accessing books in accessible formats such as DAISY (Digital Accessible Information System), even when sighted readers could freely purchase print or digital editions. This created structural inequality embedded within intellectual property regimes.

The Marrakesh Treaty (2013) emerged after sustained global advocacy by disability rights organisations. It enables cross-border exchange of accessible-format books and allows national exceptions permitting conversion of works into accessible formats when publishers fail to provide them. The treaty reframed copyright not merely as a commercial instrument but as a rights-based governance issue linked to equality and inclusion.

The resistance from sections of the copyright industry highlighted a broader tension: the expansion of proprietary rights at the cost of public access. This episode illustrates how rigid copyright frameworks can obstruct welfare-enhancing technologies and inclusive development.

When copyright prioritises monopoly over access, it undermines constitutional values of equality and social justice. Ignoring accessibility concerns entrenches digital exclusion and weakens inclusive governance frameworks.

International Development Context:

  • Marrakesh Treaty adopted in 2013
  • Facilitates cross-border exchange of accessible books
  • Recognised as a milestone in disability rights governance

GS Linkages: GS2 (Social Justice, International Treaties), GS3 (IPR regime), GS1 (Social Issues)

2. Evolution of Copyright: From Limited Monopoly to Perpetual Control

Copyright is a relatively recent legal innovation. The Statute of Anne (1710) granted authors a limited monopoly of 14 years, renewable once, subject to registration and deposit requirements. The default orientation was towards public dissemination and library access.

In contrast, modern copyright law—such as India’s Copyright Act, 1957—grants automatic protection from the moment of creation and extends it to the author’s lifetime plus 70 years posthumously. The scope has expanded beyond publishing to cover virtually all forms of creative expression, regardless of commercial intent.

This shift has reversed the earlier balance between private rights and the public domain. What was once a limited exception to public access has become an almost default monopoly regime. The public domain, historically central to knowledge dissemination, has significantly shrunk.

As copyright duration and scope expand, the regulatory burden on innovation increases. Without recalibration, overprotection risks slowing knowledge diffusion, technological progress, and cultural development.

Key Evolution:

  • 1710: 14-year term (renewable once)
  • 1847: Copyright introduced in India by the British
  • 1957: Current Indian Copyright Act
  • Present term: Life of author + 70 years

GS Linkages: GS2 (Governance & Law), GS3 (IPR and Innovation), Essay (Knowledge Commons)

3. AI, Web Crawling and Legal Uncertainty

Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly large language models, relies on vast quantities of data, including copyrighted material. Web search engines and AI systems function through “crawling” and copying data for statistical analysis. However, in many jurisdictions, such copying may technically violate copyright law.

A study by LIRNEasia examining seven South and Southeast Asian countries found that in 4 out of 7 countries, copyright law effectively renders web search and AI training illegal due to lack of clear exceptions. Only the Philippines and Sri Lanka (with flexible “fair use” provisions) and India (through a limited 2012 exception for “transient or incidental storage”) provide partial legal space.

In contrast, jurisdictions such as the European Union, Japan, and Singapore have introduced explicit “text and data mining” (TDM) exceptions. Japan permits use for purposes not involving enjoyment of the expressive content but for data analysis. This recognises the distinction between human consumption and machine processing.

Legal ambiguity creates a chilling effect on innovation. If AI developers face litigation risks, domestic technological capacity may stagnate, increasing dependence on foreign platforms.

Comparative Legal Position:

  • 4/7 countries studied lack enabling exceptions
  • India (2012 amendment): Exception for “transient or incidental storage”
  • EU, Japan, Singapore: Explicit TDM exceptions
  • Japan: Allows use for “data analysis” not involving enjoyment of expression

GS Linkages: GS3 (Science & Technology, Digital Economy), GS2 (Regulatory Frameworks), IR (Comparative Policy Regimes)

4. Copyright vs Technological Change: Labour and Innovation

Concerns around generative AI often focus on potential displacement of creative labour. However, copyright law was historically designed to encourage creativity, not to protect specific occupations from technological change.

Technological shifts have consistently displaced older professions—telegraphists, stenographers, typesetters, and others—while simultaneously creating new forms of employment and cultural production. The introduction of photography reduced demand for portrait painters but expanded artistic possibilities and access to visual knowledge.

Policy responses to labour displacement may involve grants, taxation, or social protection mechanisms. However, embedding employment protection within copyright law risks distorting its primary objective: fostering creativity and knowledge dissemination.

Confusing intellectual property protection with labour protection leads to regulatory inefficiency. If copyright becomes a job-preservation tool, it may inhibit innovation without guaranteeing sustainable employment outcomes.

GS Linkages: GS3 (Technology & Employment), GS2 (Public Policy), Essay (Technology and Society)

5. Commons, Open Models and Public Datasets

Open-licensed AI models and datasets represent contributions to the knowledge commons. Developers invest significant computational resources to create assets that others can build upon, expanding collective innovation capacity.

Governments can play a catalytic role by curating high-quality, locally relevant datasets for public use. Establishing safe harbour provisions for such datasets—particularly when used in open-source AI training—can reduce litigation risks and encourage collaborative innovation ecosystems.

Historically, copyright has sometimes been used to block beneficial technologies, such as assistive reading features. This indicates the risk of regulatory capture where industry interests override broader public welfare considerations.

Strengthening the commons enhances long-term innovation capacity. Without legal safeguards for open models and public datasets, developing countries may lag in AI capability and remain dependent on proprietary foreign systems.

Policy Measures Suggested:

  • Introduce broad text and data mining exceptions
  • Adopt flexible, open-ended “fair use”-type provisions
  • Establish safe harbour for government-curated datasets
  • Encourage open-source AI ecosystems

GS Linkages: GS3 (Innovation Ecosystem), GS2 (Public Institutions), IR (Digital Sovereignty)

6. Governance Implications for India

India’s hosting of an AI summit underscores its ambition to be a major AI hub. However, the absence of a broad, flexible copyright exception creates legal uncertainty around AI training data collection.

Countries such as Singapore and the United States have adopted flexible fair use regimes that evolve with technological change. Without similar adaptability, India’s copyright framework may consistently lag behind emerging technologies.

Aligning copyright law with developmental goals requires balancing creators’ rights with public interest. A recalibrated framework can simultaneously promote creativity, accessibility, and technological advancement.

"The progress of science and useful arts" — U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 (Reflects the original purpose of copyright as a means to promote knowledge, not restrict it.)

If India fails to modernise its copyright regime, it risks constraining domestic AI innovation and weakening its digital economy ambitions.

GS Linkages: GS2 (Legislative Reform), GS3 (Digital India, AI Strategy), Essay (Balancing Rights and Innovation)

Conclusion

The debate around copyright and AI reflects a broader governance challenge: balancing private rights with public interest in an era of rapid technological change. A flexible, development-oriented copyright regime—grounded in accessibility, innovation, and the strengthening of the commons—can position India as a leader in inclusive digital transformation.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

Copyright law was historically conceived as a limited statutory monopoly granted to authors to incentivise creativity while ultimately enriching the public domain. The Statute of Anne (1710) provided protection for 14 years, renewable once, and required registration and deposit of copies for public access. The underlying philosophy was clear: copyright was not a natural right but a temporary privilege granted in exchange for contributing to society’s knowledge pool.

Over time, however, copyright has expanded dramatically in scope and duration. In India, under the Copyright Act, 1957, protection arises automatically upon creation and lasts for the author’s lifetime plus 70 years. This shift has effectively made copyright the default condition, rather than the public domain. Even trivial, non-commercial expressions are protected for decades.

This expansion has altered the delicate balance between creators and society. While creators retain long-term control, access to knowledge, technological innovation, and creative reuse face increasing restrictions. The result is what scholars term ‘copyright maximalism’—a system that may undermine the very creativity and dissemination it was originally designed to promote.

Artificial Intelligence systems rely heavily on large-scale data processing, including text and images that are often copyrighted. Activities such as web crawling, indexing, and training AI models require copying data temporarily for analysis. In jurisdictions without flexible copyright exceptions, these acts may technically constitute infringement, creating legal uncertainty for innovators.

This issue is urgent because AI is central to economic competitiveness, research, and governance. Countries such as Japan, the European Union, and Singapore have adopted text and data mining (TDM) exceptions, recognising that machine-based analysis does not ‘enjoy’ expressive content in a human sense. Japan explicitly exempts uses not intended for enjoying the ideas or emotions expressed in a work.

For India, hosting the AI Impact Summit signals ambition to be a global AI leader. Without clear legal reform—such as broader fair use provisions—copyright law could hamper domestic AI development, stifle start-ups, and discourage research. Thus, reform is not merely a legal issue but a strategic developmental imperative.

The claim suggests that copyright is sometimes invoked to block innovations that threaten established business models rather than to genuinely protect creativity. For instance, the Authors Guild in the U.S. opposed Amazon Kindle’s Read Aloud feature, despite its assistive value for visually impaired readers. Similarly, rigid copyright interpretations can render AI training and web indexing legally uncertain.

However, copyright holders argue that weakening protections could enable large technology corporations to exploit creative works without fair compensation, undermining livelihoods in publishing, music, and film industries. They emphasise the need to protect economic incentives for creators.

A balanced perspective recognises that copyright should not become a tool to suppress socially beneficial technologies. Historical transitions—such as photography reducing demand for portrait painters—illustrate that innovation can displace some forms of labour while creating new opportunities. Therefore, copyright law must adapt to technological realities without abandoning its core objective of fostering creativity.

The Marrakesh Treaty emerged from advocacy highlighting how rigid copyright laws prevented visually impaired persons from accessing books in accessible formats such as DAISY. A visually impaired reader could not legally purchase cross-border accessible books, while sighted readers faced no such restrictions. This disparity raised serious concerns about equality and the ‘right to read’.

The treaty introduced mandatory exceptions allowing the creation and cross-border exchange of accessible-format works. Despite opposition from segments of the copyright industry, it recognised that intellectual property must be balanced with human rights principles.

The Marrakesh example demonstrates that copyright reform can reconcile creators’ interests with social justice. It sets a precedent for AI-related reforms by showing that exceptions can expand access without dismantling the copyright system. Thus, intellectual property law must evolve in line with constitutional values of equality and dignity.

India can adopt a flexible fair use regime that allows courts to evaluate new technological uses without constant legislative amendments. Introducing a comprehensive text and data mining exception would provide clarity for AI developers and researchers. Safe harbour provisions could protect open-source datasets and publicly curated training resources from excessive litigation.

At the same time, concerns about creative labour displacement should be addressed through policy measures outside copyright, such as public funding for arts, cooperative creative platforms, or taxation of large AI companies to support cultural sectors. Copyright should incentivise creativity, not serve as a labour protection statute.

By balancing innovation with safeguards for creators, India can modernise its copyright regime while positioning itself as a leader in equitable AI governance. The objective must be to expand access, encourage creativity, and foster technological progress simultaneously.

India has an opportunity to champion a Global South perspective on copyright reform. It can advocate internationally for flexible exceptions that support education, accessibility, and innovation, building on its experience with the Marrakesh Treaty. Domestically, clarifying legal provisions for web crawling and AI training would reduce uncertainty and attract investment.

India can also lead in promoting open-licensed AI models and datasets as contributions to the global commons. Government-curated, high-quality datasets for public-interest AI research—protected through safe harbour mechanisms—could strengthen digital sovereignty and reduce dependence on foreign technology monopolies.

Strategically, India’s leadership should focus on restoring copyright to its foundational purpose: encouraging creativity while expanding public access to knowledge. By modernising its framework, India can align technological advancement with constitutional values and inclusive development.

Attribution

Original content sources and authors

PP
Pranesh Prakash
TH
The Hindu
Sign in to track your reading progress

Comments (0)

Please sign in to comment

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!