The question of whether AI-generated content should be eligible for copyright protection is complex and debated. Traditionally, copyright law protects original works created by human authors, emphasizing creativity and intellectual effort.

Since AI lacks consciousness and human intent, many legal systems, including India and the U.S., currently do not recognize AI as an author. Granting copyright to AI-generated works could challenge core legal principles, such as accountability and ownership. However, some argue that the human who programs, prompts, or uses the AI meaningfully should be granted copyright, as their input guides the creation. As AI becomes more advanced, a balanced legal framework may be needed to address human-AI collaboration, ensuring both innovation and protection are fairly managed.

For a product to be copyrighted, a human creator is needed. AI-generated content can't be copyrighted because it isn't considered to be the work of a human creator.

AI-generated content should not be eligible for traditional copyright protection because copyright law is based on the principle of **human authorship**, requiring creativity and originality from a natural person. Since AI lacks consciousness and intent, works created solely by machines without human input fall outside the scope of most existing copyright frameworks. However, if a human significantly contributes to the creation process—by providing prompts, curating outputs, or editing—**limited copyright protection** may be granted to the human for their creative contribution. This issue remains debated globally, with jurisdictions like the U.S. and India largely rejecting copyright for purely AI-generated works.