Designing the Future: AI Authorship IN India And EU Design Law

1. Introduction

The emergence of artificial intelligence (“AI”) as a tool for generating industrial designs has created unprecedented challenges for intellectual property regimes worldwide. While the European Union has begun addressing these challenges through legislative proposals, as well as, judicial decisions, the Indian regulatory framework remains largely untested in this domain. This article examines the protection of AI-generated designs under Indian law while drawing comparative insights from the EU's approach, analysing the adequacy of existing frameworks, and proposing potential adaptations to address emerging challenges.

The increasing sophistication of AI design tools raise fundamental questions about the nature of creativity, authorship, and ownership in design law. These questions become particularly acute in jurisdictions like India, where the legal framework was constructed with human designers in mind. As AI systems move from being mere tools to potentially autonomous creators, both the Indian and EU legal systems grapple with questions that challenge traditional concepts of intellectual property protection.

2. The Current Legal Framework

The Indian and European Union frameworks for design protection reveal fundamentally different approaches to protecting industrial designs, particularly relevant when examining AI-generated designs.

India's framework, under the Designs Act, 2000 and the Design Rules, 2001, defines design through process, focusing on "features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to any article by any industrial process or means." The process-centric definition implicitly assumes human agency through its emphasis on ‘author’. The Indian system provides only registered protection for a 10-year term, extendable by 5 years, requiring designs to be new, original, and significantly distinguishable from known designs.

In contrast, the EU framework, established through the Community Design Regulation and Design Directive, defines design by outcome rather than process, protecting "the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from features of lines, contours, colors, shape, texture and/or materials." This outcome-focused approach, combined with the EU's dual system of registered and unregistered rights, offers greater flexibility in accommodating AI-generated designs.

The EU framework's introduction of "design development" as a concept maintains a connection to human intellectual effort while demonstrating less anthropocentrism than traditional copyright law. This nuanced approach provides a potential model for evaluating AI-generated designs while preserving human creative input. Both systems, however, face challenges in applying traditional novelty and originality criteria to AI-generated designs, given AI's capability to produce numerous variations rapidly through algorithmic processes. 

3. Core Challenges in Protecting AI-Generated Designs

1. Authorship and Ownership

The fundamental challenge in protecting AI-generated designs under Indian law stems from the concept of authorship and ownership. Section 2(j) of the Indian Designs Act defines the "proprietor of a new or original design" as the author of the design or any person who has acquired it for valuable consideration. This definition assumes human creativity and authorship, creating uncertainty regarding designs generated autonomously by AI systems.

Similarly, while the EU framework appears more flexible, it still grapples with questions of authorship for AI-generated designs. The EU's emphasis on "design development" rather than mere creation suggests some form of human contribution is necessary, but the exact nature and extent of this contribution remain debatable.

2. Novelty and Originality Assessment

The assessment of novelty and originality presents significant challenges for both jurisdictions. AI systems can generate numerous design variations quickly, making traditional novelty assessments more complex while comparing to the prior art. The Indian Design Office's current examination procedures, like many other jurisdictions, were not designed to handle the volume and nature of AI-generated variations.

In the EU context, the assessment of individual character through the eyes of the "informed user" adds another layer of complexity when dealing with AI-generated designs. The question arises whether this hypothetical person would perceive AI-generated variations differently from human-created designs.

4. Comparative Analysis of Current Approaches

The distinction between AI-assisted and AI-generated designs is crucial in both Indian and EU frameworks. Where AI serves merely as a tool under human direction, existing legal frameworks appear more capable of accommodating protection. The EU's concept of "design development" provides a useful framework for distinguishing between designs where human contribution is substantial enough to warrant protection and those where it is minimal or absent. Indian law, lacking explicit provisions for differing levels of AI involvement, might benefit from adopting a similar conceptual framework by using the current definition of "proprietor" under the Indian Designs Act to interpret and recognize varying degrees of human contribution in AI-assisted design creation, while in arguendo could potentially exclude purely AI-generated designs lacking “human input”.

The challenge of AI authorship in design law can be better understood through the lens of the DABUS patent cases, where patent offices worldwide rejected applications listing an AI system as the inventor. Though these decisions concerned patent law, they illuminate how intellectual property regimes grapple with AI creativity. While the European Patent Office, US courts, and UK courts uniformly held that inventors must be natural persons, they differed in their reasoning - some focused on statutory interpretation of terms like "inventor" while others emphasized the fundamental role of human agency in intellectual property rights. 

These decisions suggest Indian courts may face similar challenges when determining whether an AI system can be considered a "proprietor" under Section 2(j) of the Designs Act, 2000. Currently, like patent law, Indian design law implicitly assumes human authorship through its language of "author" and "proprietor," terms that parallel the "inventor" requirement in patent law. This creates a significant hurdle for protecting purely AI-generated designs, though designs where AI acts merely as a tool under human direction may still find protection by recognizing the human operator as the author. 

5. Proposed Legal Solutions

1. Legislative Amendments

Both jurisdictions require legislative updates to address AI-generated designs effectively. For India, several specific amendments to the Designs Act, 2000 merit consideration:

First, the definition of "proprietor" in Section 2(j) should be expanded to explicitly address AI-generated designs. This could include recognizing the person who makes the arrangements necessary for the design's creation through AI.

Second, India should consider introducing provisions for unregistered design rights, particularly where AI-generated designs have short commercial lifecycles. This would align more closely with the EU's flexible approach while addressing the practical needs of rapidly evolving industries.

2. Examination Guidelines

The Indian Design Office should develop specific examination guidelines for AI-generated designs or designs in general like showcasing and documenting the creation process of the designs. The novelty assessment of designs generated through iterative AI processes requires new approaches to determining material differences between variations. These guidelines should establish clear criteria for assessing individual character in AI-generated designs while maintaining reasonable standards for novelty and originality.

Courts must develop nuanced approaches to interpreting existing provisions in light of AI technology. Indian courts could draw from the EU's experience in balancing technological innovation with traditional principles of design protection, particularly in determining the threshold of human contribution necessary for protection, considering both direct creative input and indirect contributions through AI system development and operation. This approach should recognize the role of human agency while acknowledging the transformative potential of AI in design creation.

6. Future Considerations

As AI technology continues to evolve, international harmonization of design protection becomes increasingly important. The EU's experience in harmonizing design protection across member states offers valuable lessons for developing international standards for AI-generated designs. India, as a significant player in both technology and intellectual property, should actively participate in shaping these international norms. The rapid advancement of AI technology suggests that current legal solutions may require regular revision. Both Indian and EU frameworks should maintain sufficient flexibility to accommodate future technological developments while preserving core principles of design protection.

7. Conclusion

In summation, the legal protection of AI-generated designs underscores a critical juncture in both Indian and EU frameworks, revealing the tension between traditional conceptions of authorship and the realities of emergent technologies. While the EU’s outcome-focused protection scheme, supplemented by a dual system of registered and unregistered rights, provides a more adaptable model for AI-influenced creations, India’s existing legislation remains constrained by its predominantly anthropocentric orientation.

Addressing this gap necessitates legislative reform—particularly an expansion of the statutory definitions of “proprietor” and “author”—alongside the introduction of pragmatic examination guidelines capable of discerning genuinely novel AI-generated designs from trivial algorithmic iterations. Moreover, crafting unregistered rights for rapidly evolving industries could align Indian law more closely with the flexible EU approach.

Ultimately, both jurisdictions must endeavour to balance human input with the dynamic capabilities of AI in the design landscape. By embracing deliberate legislative amendments and refining judicial interpretation, India and the EU can advance a measured framework that safeguards the integrity of design rights while fostering technological innovation and international consistency.