MUMBAI: When French composer Olivier Messiaen wrote Quartet for the End of Time inside a German concentration camp during World War II, all he had was a scrap of paper and three fellow musicians—a violinist, a cellist, and a clarinetist. Despite the unimaginable conditions, what emerged was a modern musical masterpiece performed for thousands of prisoners and guards.
Fast-forward to today, and the landscape of music creation looks drastically different. With the rise of AI, artists no longer need to endure such extremes to express their creativity. But that raises a pressing question: can machines replicate the genius—and the soul—of human artistry?
AI vs. Originality: The Copyright Clash
Related Post
The Indian music industry thinks not. Major labels like T-Series, Saregama, and Sony Music India (under the Indian Music Industry, or IMI) have joined a high-stakes copyright lawsuit against OpenAI. Their claim: the company used copyrighted music and lyrics without permission to train its AI models, including ChatGPT.
This isn’t OpenAI’s first brush with controversy in India. The case originated in November 2024 when news agency ANI filed a lawsuit for unauthorized use of its news content. The case has since snowballed, drawing support from artists and publishers concerned about the unchecked use of creative works by AI systems.
Does Indian Law Apply to OpenAI?
OpenAI has pushed back, arguing that as a U.S.-based company with servers outside India, Indian courts don’t have jurisdiction. But Indian labels counter that OpenAI has millions of users in India—one of its largest markets—and must follow Indian copyright law.
Advocate Kartik Dey, who practices in the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, notes that while OpenAI might invoke “fair use,” that defense is narrow under Indian law. “Indian copyright law allows fair use only under specific conditions—like criticism, review, or research,” he explains. “Training a commercial AI model doesn’t qualify.”
Dey adds that OpenAI’s shift from a nonprofit to a for-profit entity in 2019, now valued at $157 billion, weakens its fair use claim even further. “If AI-generated outputs compete with original works, that’s not fair use—that’s infringement,” he says.
The Heart of the Matter: What Happens if Labels Win?
If the labels succeed in court, possible outcomes could include forcing OpenAI to delete all infringing content, paying heavy damages, or agreeing to license content going forward. Legal experts say the verdict could have sweeping implications for how AI is trained worldwide.
“This case is crucial,” says Advocate Srish Mishra. “It may set the tone for how copyright laws are interpreted in India in the age of AI.”
The Creators Fight Back
Musicians and industry professionals have welcomed the lawsuit as a long-overdue pushback. Indie-folk artist and media lawyer Shourya Malhotra puts it plainly: “If I have to pay to be inspired by music, why should AI get a free pass? Copyright has never meant free-for-all.”
This isn’t an isolated case. Globally, copyright suits are piling up against AI companies. In 2024, Germany’s GEMA sued OpenAI for unauthorized use of lyrics. In 2023, Universal Music Group (UMG) demanded the removal of an AI-generated track called Heart on My Sleeve, which mimicked Drake and The Weeknd, sparking outrage after going viral.
Even streaming giants like Apple Music, YouTube, and Spotify removed the song, citing copyright concerns.
Artists Call for Regulation and Transparency
Artists such as Billie Eilish, Pearl Jam, and Celine Dion have joined the growing chorus calling for stronger copyright protections in the AI era. Their concern isn’t just about ownership—but about preserving creativity itself.
Advocate Dey suggests that AI developers should be required to disclose if they’ve used copyrighted material, credit original creators, and implement revenue-sharing systems. “Just like Spotify recommends tracks based on your taste, AI could credit and reward original creators when their styles are used,” he says.
Jaspreet Bindra, CEO of public policy think tank AI&Beyond, agrees. “AI lacks the human essence—emotion, experience, improvisation. That’s what makes music timeless. We must embrace AI, but not at the cost of originality.”
Licensing in Limbo
One major hurdle is that current licensing systems were never designed for AI. There’s no established process to license music for model training or to compensate creators for AI-generated adaptations of their work.
“We need two things right now,” says Mishra. “First, a simpler, fairer licensing process. And second, a distinction between AI used for public interest versus commercial exploitation.”
Who Owns AI-Generated Music?
As AI systems grow more sophisticated, the question of ownership becomes murkier. Is it the creator of the algorithm? The company that trained it? Or the original artist whose music was ingested?
Shanit Ghose, founder of AI-powered music startup Sur, says it’s time for new legal frameworks. “AI-generated content must be governed by updated copyright laws. Otherwise, we risk a future where artists’ voices are used, replicated, and monetized without credit or compensation.”
A Turning Point for the Industry
Whether this lawsuit ends in a settlement, a licensing deal, or a landmark verdict, one thing is clear: the music industry is drawing a line. As AI becomes more involved in creativity, the rights of human artists must evolve with it.
Because while machines can be trained to replicate harmony and rhythm, it’s the human touch that still writes the most powerful songs.
