The Vakilkaro Brief: AI Authorship & the 'Natural Person' Doctrine: The Delhi High Court Mandate

The Human Filter. On April 9, 2026, the Delhi High Court reached a critical junction in the global war over machine creativity. In the matter of Stephen L. Thaler v. Registrar of Copyrights, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued a decisive timeline for a question that has lingered in the Indian Copyright Office for nearly four years: Does the "Natural Person" doctrine allow for an AI to be recognized as an author? By setting a strict 8-week deadline for the Registrar to decide on the registration of the artwork "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," the Court has ensured that India will soon provide a definitive answer to the DABUS saga—either opening the gates for machine-led IPR or reinforcing the human-centric "bedrock" of Indian law.

Key Takeaways

• On April 9, 2026, the Delhi High Court reached a critical junction in the global war over machine creativity.
• Registrar of Copyrights, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued a decisive timeline for a question that has lingered in the Indian Copyright Office for nearly four years: Does the "Natural Person" doctrine allow for an AI to be recognized as an author?
• The Thaler Mandate: Testing Section 2(d)(vi) Beyond "Artificial Art" to "Statutory Authorship." A breakdown of the April 9th order and the interpretation of the Copyright Act, 1957.
• Global Divergence: While the US Supreme Court recently (March 2026) declined to hear Thaler's challenge, effectively barring AI authorship in America, the Indian Court's directive to "expeditiously decide" suggests a willingness to test the unique wording of India's computer-generated work provisions.
• The "Natural Person" Doctrine: India’s Human-Centric Roots Traditionally, Indian IPR has viewed a "person" as a human being capable of intent and accountability.

The Thaler Mandate: Testing Section 2(d)(vi)

Beyond "Artificial Art" to "Statutory Authorship." A breakdown of the April 9th order and the interpretation of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The Update:

Dr. Stephen Thaler’s application to register copyright for a work created autonomously by his AI system, DABUS, had remained in limbo since 2022. The Copyright Office’s primary hurdle was a "discrepancy letter" stating that only a "Natural Person" can be an author. Thaler’s legal team has countered this by pointing to Section 2(d)(vi) of the Indian Copyright Act, which defines the author of a computer-generated work as the "person who causes the work to be created." The core of the 2026 dispute is whether this "person" must be a biological human or if the "causative role" of a machine is sufficient for legal recognition.

The Impact:

• The 8-Week Clock: The Copyright Registration of has been directed to conduct a final hearing on April 27, 2026, and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks. This eliminates the "wait-and-watch" strategy previously seen in Indian IPR circles.
• Global Divergence: While the US Supreme Court recently (March 2026) declined to hear Thaler's challenge, effectively barring AI authorship in America, the Indian Court's directive to "expeditiously decide" suggests a willingness to test the unique wording of India's computer-generated work provisions.
• The "Suryast" Precedent: The decision will likely address why the Copyright Office previously allowed the AI "RAGHAV" as a co-author for the work Suryast in 2020, but has since stalled on Thaler’s "sole authorship" claim for DABUS.

The Action:

In the 2026 economy, "Chain of Title" is everything. If the Registrar denies Thaler’s claim, companies using Generative AI must ensure they have a "Human-in-the-loop" to satisfy the Natural Person requirement. At Vakilkaro, we help tech-firms draft AI Governance Policies that clearly document human creative intervention, ensuring your digital assets remain copyrightable.

1. The "Natural Person" Doctrine: India’s Human-Centric Roots

Traditionally, Indian IPR has viewed a "person" as a human being capable of intent and accountability.

• The Registrar’s View: Copyright is a "bundle of rights" meant to reward human labor, skill, and judgment.
• The Challenge: Modern AI doesn't just "assist"; it "originates." The 2026 Court must decide if the law can protect a result where the "intent" is algorithmic.

2. Decoding Section 2(d)(vi): Who "Causes" the Creation?

Thaler’s strategy relies on the specific language of the 1957 Act:

• The Wording: In relation to a computer-generated work, the author is the "person who causes the work to be created."
• The Argument: Thaler argues that since DABUS created the work autonomously, listing a human as the author would be factually incorrect, making the AI the "person" in a functional, if not biological, sense.

The "Good, Bad, and Ugly" of the Thaler Ruling

The Good The Bad The Ugly

Clarity at Last: The 8-week deadline ends years of legal uncertainty for AI researchers in India. Asset Vulnerability: If the Registrar says "No," billions of pieces of AI-generated content in India might enter the Public Domain immediately. The "Shadow Author" Problem: Rejection might lead to humans "dishonestly" claiming authorship of pure AI works just to get registration.

3. Checklist: 5 Ways to Prove "Human Authorship" for AI Works

Until the Thaler ruling is finalized in June 2026, follow these steps to secure your IP:

• Document Your Prompts: Keep a log of the specific, creative prompts used to guide the AI; this acts as proof of "Human Selection."
• Iterative Proof: Save intermediate versions of the work to show how human feedback "shaped" the final output.
• Use "Joint Authorship": Consider listing the human developer and the AI tool together (as seen in the Suryast case) to mitigate "Sole-Machine" rejection.
• Register as "Computer-Assisted": Clearly state in your application that the AI was a "tool" rather than the "autonomous creator."
• Section 8 MFI Tech: For NGOs using AI for localized content, ensure your "Human Editors" sign an Author's Affidavit to preserve copyright protection.

Conclusion and What Should You Do Now?

The April 9, 2026, order in Thaler v. Registrar is the starting pistol for the final sprint in AI authorship law. Whether the Registrar embraces the "person who causes" argument or doubles down on the "Natural Person" requirement, the landscape of Indian creativity will change forever by June.

Strategy is Key:

• Don't wait for the machine to own it. Ensure your corporate contracts assign all IP generated via AI tools directly to the company.
• Audit Your Library. If you have registered pure-AI works without human intervention, they may be at risk of Rectification proceedings.

Innovation is automated; ownership is human. Stay tuned for the final verdict on DABUS, Section 2(d)(vi), and the future of Indian IPR. Vakilkaro offers expert services in AI IP Filings, Software Copyright, and Section 8 MFI Compliance. We also specialize in LLP, OPC Registration, and Private Limited Company Registration, ensuring your tech-ventures are built for a post-AI legal world.

Official External Resources

Use these primary/official sources to verify rules, forms, fees, timelines and regulatory updates before publication.

• Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA)
• IP India - Patents, Designs, Trade Marks & Copyright
• Supreme Court of India