Can Copyright Be Claimed Over AI-Generated Song? Delhi High Court To Examine In Infringement Suit

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday raised doubts over whether a song generated using artificial intelligence can receive copyright protection under Indian law.

The court was hearing a copyright infringement suit filed by songwriter-producer Tarun Chaudhary, who claims that a song whose rights he purchased was infringed by the defendants.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed during the hearing that the legal position on AI-generated works remains unsettled, remarking, “There is no judgment on AI," while also questioning whether copyright can be claimed where the composition itself appears to have been generated by an AI tool.

The court also directed that the Registrar of Copyrights be impleaded as a party, noting that clarification from the copyright office may be necessary to determine the scope of protection claimed by the plaintiff. “It would be in the interest of justice at this stage to include the registrar of copyrights as a party defendant,” the court ordered.

According to Chaudhary, he purchased the master rights of the song from the original creator. He claims that the lyrics were written by a human author while the music was generated using the Suno AI platform based on detailed prompts and that the defendants later used the same song without authorization.

Relying on Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, the plaintiff argued that in the case of computer-generated works, the author is “the person who causes the work to be created.” Counsel submitted that the music was generated through specific prompts given to the AI tool by a music producer and that the work was therefore his.

The defendants opposed the injunction and questioned whether any copyright existed in the song at all. Relying on Suno AI's terms of service, they submitted that the platform assigns certain rights to users but does not guarantee that copyright will vest in AI-generated output and argued that if the original creator had no copyright, a subsequent purchaser could not claim exclusive rights.

They argued that if the original creator had no assured copyright, the plaintiff, who claims to have purchased the rights, could not assert exclusive ownership. “If the original owner itself did not have any copyright… the subsequent purchaser cannot assert any right whatsoever,” counsel submitted.

During the hearing, the court noted that the pleadings did not clearly show what exactly the plaintiff owned, whether the lyrics, the composition, the sound recording, or the entire song. The court observed that the lyrics may be original, but the composition appeared to be entirely generated by AI, with no clear material showing a human role in selecting or arranging the music.

Justice Gedela remarked, “What we're asking is this copyright is on what?… it is not clear as to whether the plaintiff can assert copyright and the song is technically generated by the AI tool.”

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the alleged infringement, but the court declined to grant immediate relief, observing that the case involves unsettled legal issues and unclear pleadings. “It is not a clear case for injunction… we have doubts whether this suit can be maintained as it is,” the court said while directing the defendants to file their replies.

The court granted the defendants 10 days to file their response and allowed the plaintiff 3 days thereafter to file a rejoinder.