--- title: "Delhi High Court Examines Copyright Protection in AI-Generated Song Dispute" date: 2026-04-17 author: "King Stubb & Kasiva" url: https://ksandk.com/newsletter/ai-copyright-india/ --- # Delhi High Court Examines Copyright Protection in AI-Generated Song Dispute Posted On - 17 April, 2026 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva ## Summary In a significant development at the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law, the **Delhi High Court** in *Tarun Chaudhary & Anr vs. Kuldeep Meena & Ors.*1 addressed the complex question of whether copyright can subsist in a song generated using an AI tool. The Court refrained from granting interim relief and highlighted the uncertainty surrounding authorship and ownership of AI-generated works under the Copyright Act, 1957. Recognizing the novelty of the issue, the Court impleaded the **Registrar of Copyright** to assist in determining whether such works are capable of copyright protection under existing law. ## Facts of the Case The plaintiffs claimed ownership over a song titled **“Teri Yaadon Ki Chadar Odhe”**, asserting that the rights were acquired through a purchase agreement from the original creator. However, it was admitted in the plaint that the musical composition of the song was generated using an AI tool known as **SUNO AI**, with only the lyrics being human-authored. ### Reliefs Sought by the Plaintiffs The plaintiffs sought multiple reliefs, including: - Permanent injunction against infringement - Removal of the song from platforms - Disclosure of revenues - Damages amounting to **₹2.5 crore** ### Defendants’ Argument The defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit, arguing that **no copyright could subsist in AI-generated music**, particularly when the AI tool itself disclaimed any ownership or warranty over generated outputs. ## Issues Before the Court Whether **copyright can subsist** in a song generated using an AI tool, and whether the plaintiff can claim ownership over such a work under the existing framework of the Copyright Act, 1957. ## Findings of the Court The Court undertook a preliminary examination of the statutory framework, particularly **Sections 2(d), 13, and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957**. While Section 2(d) recognizes the “author” of a computer-generated work as the person who causes the work to be created, the Court noted that the present case raises a deeper question regarding the extent of **human involvement** required. ### Key Observations The Court observed that: - The plaintiffs failed to clearly establish the nature and extent of copyright claimed, especially in relation to the **AI-generated musical composition**. - The claim was not limited to the lyrics (which could qualify as a literary work), but extended to the entire song, including the AI-generated music. - The terms of service of the AI tool indicated that **no copyright ownership or warranty** was guaranteed over generated outputs. ### International Jurisprudence The Court also took note of international jurisprudence, including the decision in *Stephen Thaler vs. Shira Perlmutter* (US Case), which emphasized the requirement of **human authorship** for copyright protection. Given these uncertainties, the Court found itself confronted with a *“piquant situation”* regarding the applicability of copyright law to AI-generated works. ## Held The Court declined to grant an *ex-parte ad-interim injunction*, holding that it could not be **prima facie satisfied** about the plaintiff’s copyright in the AI-generated song. To address the legal ambiguity, the Court impleaded the **Registrar of Copyright** as a necessary party and directed further proceedings to determine whether such works are entitled to copyright protection under Indian law. ## Conclusion This order marks an important step in the evolving discourse on **AI and intellectual property** in India. By refusing interim relief and seeking institutional clarity, the Delhi High Court has underscored the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks in addressing AI-generated content. The case highlights the pressing need for **legislative and judicial clarity** on issues of authorship, ownership, and originality in the age of artificial intelligence. It also signals judicial caution in extending traditional copyright protections to technologically generated works without clear statutory backing. --- ## Office Locations - [New Delhi](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-delhi/) (HQ): +91-11-41318190 | info@ksandk.com - [Mumbai](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-mumbai/): 3 offices (Nariman Point, Lower Parel, Andheri) | mumbai@ksandk.com - [Bangalore](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-bangalore/): bangalore@ksandk.com - [Chennai](https://ksandk.com/locations/chennai/): chennai@ksandk.com - [Hyderabad](https://ksandk.com/locations/hyderabad/): hyderabad@ksandk.com - [Pune](https://ksandk.com/locations/pune/): pune@ksandk.com - [Kochi](https://ksandk.com/locations/kochi/): kochi@ksandk.com ## Contact - [Contact Page](https://ksandk.com/contact-us/) - General: info@ksandk.com | +91-11-41318190 - WhatsApp: +91-7428567444 - [Privacy Statement](https://ksandk.com/privacy-statement/) - [Terms of Use](https://ksandk.com/terms-of-use/)