Alliance Center for
Intellectual Property Rights
MORAL RIGHTS IN THE AGE OF AI: IS "CREDIT" MORE IMPORTANT THAN OWNERSHIP?
October 1, 2025
**Ms. Kriti Khandelwal
INTRODUCTION
In an era where AI can perform virtually any task, the question is not what AI can create, but rather who gets the credit for that creation. The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has brought challenges to the world of intellectual property rights. For decades, the copyright act has followed two sets of rights: economic rights, which can be defined as the rights that the author has, allowing them to earn money by selling their creation, and thereby retaining control over the exploitation in the commercial world. These rights can be assigned and waived as well. Right to reproduce the work, right to issue copies are some examples of economic rights. Another set of rights is moral rights, which can be defined as a connection between an author and his creation. These rights are personal rights that protect the author’s honor, reputation, and bond with the work. Right to be credited as an author, right to prevent distortion, and mutilation are examples of moral rights. Traditionally, ownership holds the stronger pillar in society because it governs royalties and licensing. But in today’s modern era, where society is AI-driven, the importance of credit is coming to the forefront.
The blog explores the shift from ownership to credit in the age of AI. The Copyrights (Amendment) Act 1994, in line with the Berne Convention, highlighted that moral rights must be protected independently of the economic rights, and this has now become more relevant as it could mix up the inventions made by humans and what is made by machines. It examines why credit is more valuable than ownership in today’s modern economy. Fictional as well as real-world examples where AI-generated music and AI as an inventor have been explored. It highlights how technology is reshaping the world's “authorship”. It will explore why protecting recognition is the key to preserving creativity in a world full of machines.
CASE STUDIES: FICTIONAL AND REAL CONFLICTS
In one of the fictional series “Guilty Minds,” one episode depicted the courtroom drama where the conflict was between an AI system that generated music and the human artists. The AI music was trained on the existing works of human artists. The machine produced the original sound composition, but with the existing sound of the real musicians, and the musicians was denied credit for the same. Apparently, it may seem like a made-up story, but in contradiction, it showcases the present dilemma in the moral rights that the copyright law faces today.
Section 57 of Copyright Act 1957, ensures the right of attribution as well as the right to safeguard the integrity of one’s work, and the same was refused here; human artists go unnoticed, eventually erased, and the AI takes all the credit as a creator. This is not solely about economic rights but about the elimination of work and identity, as well as the respect of human artists. Hence, these scenarios are not purely made up; rather, they outline the actual controversy that is surfacing in the music and art industries.
In the case of Thaller vs Perlmutter, it is one of the crucial landmark judgments of copyright. Stephen Thaler, the creator of the AI system Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS), tried to register an image titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”, which he said was entirely generated by his AI system DABUS, and he claimed that this was without any human input. The U.S. Copyright Office rejected it, clearly stating that human authorship is a requirement of copyright law. The court essentially declared that this artwork belongs to one and is not even protected by copyright, which means that anyone can copy, reproduce, or sell it without restriction. The work itself has become an authorless work.
CREDIT V. OWNERSHIP IN THE AI ERA
The Patents Act 1970, the Copyrights Act 1957, the Trademarks Act 1999, and the Designs Act 2000 are the acts that regulate the intellectual property law in India. Although the human inventors and designers are the only focus for these acts, with the increasing use of AI, this calls into question ownership and credit of the intellectual property. AI and robots have always been a fiction for all of us, but with time, AI is making its way into every industry, such as education, innovation, and creativity, so it’s important to acknowledge and protect the work done by AI.
Nowadays, for an author, credit plays a vital role as recognition of their work preserves dignity and legacy, particularly with AI's entry into creative domains; moral rights have become more significant than ever. A musician may earn royalties with their song, but the association of their name to that song remains forever. In the digital space where memes travel throughout the world, the original creator remains unidentified; this not only undermines the earnings of the creator but also the urge for acknowledgement. Thus, ownership matters for the earnings, but credit matters for the identity. In many disputes nowadays, creators are not fighting for money but for recognition. The outcry over plagiarism in academics, journalism, and now even in art and music shows the value of credit over monetary gain.
AI has complicated and made this issue even worse. When AI produces a song, makes a painting, or even invents a new product, the question arises as to who deserves the credit. Is it the developer who coded the algorithm? The trainer who selected the dataset or those countless workers whose work was used to train AI? Or the AI itself? Several jurisdictions, like the UK, US, EU, Australia, have stated that an AI can never take a patent as any invention requires human contribution, but others, like South Africa, have opened the door for AI as the law of South Africa did not explicitly forbid it. It operates on a deposit system for patents, not a substantive examination system. The application of patents is not rigorously examined for novelty or inventive step; rather, they check that the paperwork is in order. Ownership can be assigned to companies, but credit is something that can never be given to machines, as it holds identity and authorship.
CONCLUSION
AI and IPR present challenges as well as opportunities. In the new era of AI, the controversy between credit and ownership has become evident as the query is over originality, innovation, and cultural memory. Ownership has always been about profit, royalty, whereas credit safeguards, which are of a fundamental nature: the identity, the respect, and the legacy of the artists and creators. Economic rights lapse after a deadline, but what is left are the moral rights that make sure the artists, writers, and innovators are not forgotten in this AI era. The lawmakers must focus on human vs. machine. A twofold authorship idea, where ownership of AI-generated tasks is with humans, but the credit mechanism shall not overlook the humans who put effort into making the work and art.
There is a clear necessity for rules and obligations in this modern AI era. If law, policy, and governance carry on with putting ownership as first priority while overlooking the moral rights, in essence, the acknowledgment of the creator, we will create dangers of establishing a future where innovation and originality are capitalized, which will create further problems regarding moral rights, as creators are unseen and unappreciated.
Credit is not merely symbolic to the identity of the creator, but it is the foundation of trust, reputation, and cultural continuity. To protect creativity, we must remember that machines may generate, but only humans deserve to be remembered. In this evolving era, effective laws are essential to ensure human control over AI decisions. The future of Intellectual property must prioritize both recognition and fairness so that credit does not vanish.
REFERENCES
- The Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, ยง 57, INDIA CODE (1993)
- Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025)
Author:
Ms. Kriti Khandelwal,
4th Year B. Com., LL.B. (Hons.) Student, Institute of Law, Nirma University.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of the Alliance Centre for Intellectual Property Rights (ACIPR) and the Centre does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.