India proposal on AI developers’ use of copyrighted content needs clarity, says lawyer
09 January 2026
Akshata Kamath, an associate partner at Krishnamurthy & Co. in Bengaluru, said the draft proposal by India’s government on how large and small developers of artificial intelligence can use copyrighted content needs clarity.
In December 2025, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) published Part 1 of its Working Paper on Generative AI and Copyright. The paper is based on recommendations by the eight-member committee formed by the DPIIT in April 2025 to examine India’s copyright law against the ramifications of generative AI adoption.
“The draft proposal reflects an effort to recognize the need to balance the growth of generative AI with the protection of creators’ rights. That said, the proposal would benefit from better clarity to support practical and effective implementation,” said Kamath.
Among the recommendations is the creation of a mandatory licensing model, dubbed “one nation, one licence, one payment.” Under this model, large language model developers will be able to use all lawfully accessed materials to train their AI systems under a blanket licence, without getting the consent of the copyright owners one by one. Royalty rates will be decided by a government-appointed committee, subject to review. Royalty payments will be made upon commercialization of the AI system. The hybrid model will also include a centralized entity called the “Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training” (CRCAT), which will collect the royalty payments from AI developers and distribute them to the copyright holders. CRCAT shall be managed by the copyright owners themselves.
“For instance, and without commenting on the legitimacy of a mandatory blanket licence for all copyrighted works, although such licence allows AI developers to use lawfully accessed works, irrespective of whether such works are registered or not, requiring registration of works with CRCAT members to claim compensation would limit the benefits of the model to registrants alone, thereby making it restrictive,” she explained.
Another example is the lack of clarity about how commercialization of an AI tool developed under the mandatory licence would be detected. Kamath noted this would trigger royalty payments by the AI developer.
According to the DPIIT, the draft proposal aims to lessen the risk of litigation and level the playing field between large and small AI developers. Kamath disagrees. “The proposal for implementing a mandatory blanket licence has the potential to create a more level playing field between large and small AI developers. However, this may not necessarily lessen litigation, as the proposal’s current lack of clarity could create other legal challenges. Further, disagreements over the scope of licence, valuation of works and use of infringing works may continue to prompt legal disputes despite the standardized framework,” she said.
Kamath believes that with clearer implementation guidance, a mechanism for creating awareness among creators, and phased capacity building can lead to a fair, workable and innovation-friendly framework if the proposal is revisited.
The working paper may be accessed here.
- Espie Angelica A. de Leon
