A government-appointed committee has recommended creation of a mandatory blanket licence allowing artificial intelligence (AI) developers to use all lawfully accessed copyrighted works for training AI systems, alongside a statutory remuneration right for creators. The proposal forms the core of a working paper, One Nation, One Licence, One Payment: Balancing AI Innovation and Copyright, released by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) for public consultation.
The committee, set up on April 28 and headed by DPIIT Additional Secretary Himani Pande, said it adopted a majority view in favour of an AI training licence that would apply across all categories of copyrighted content. “With a majority view, the committee decided to recommend a mandatory blanket licence in favour of AI developers for the use of all lawfully accessed copyright-protected works in the training of AI Systems, accompanied by a statutory remuneration right for the copyright holders,” the paper said. Stakeholders have been given 30 days to submit feedback.
What does the proposed model suggest?
Under the proposed model, rights holders would not be allowed to block the use of their works in AI training. Instead, they would receive royalties through a centralised non-profit entity comprising copyright societies and collective management organisations, designated by the government. “The rights holders will not have the option to withhold their works for use in the training of AI Systems. A centralised entity made by the rights holders and designated by the Central Government under the statute, would be responsible for collecting the payments from the developers of the AI Systems,” DPIIT said.
According to the paper, the proposed licensing arrangement aims to reduce transaction costs for AI firms, particularly startups and MSMEs, by eliminating the need for individual negotiations while ensuring creators are compensated for the commercial use of their works in machine-learning pipelines. The royalty formula would be linked to the revenue of AI companies, with a government-appointed committee fixing the rates. Authors of underlying works in films and sound recordings, performers, and even non-members of copyright societies would be eligible for payment, provided they register their works for this purpose.
What did the panel say?
The working paper has said that contemporary AI models are routinely trained on books, music, news articles and digital media, often without licences. It has pointed out that such practices could weaken “the economic incentives for humans to develop creative works” and create an imbalance in favour of technology companies. “To address this, a balanced regulatory architecture is required to preserve the integrity of the creative ecosystem in the country while encouraging AI innovation,” it said.
The panel concluded that access to large, high-quality datasets is essential for generative AI development, and that prolonged negotiations or opt-out regimes could impair the representativeness of datasets. It said the hybrid model it proposes aims to provide an easy access to content for AI developers for AI training, simplify licensing procedures, reduce transaction costs, ensure fair compensation for rights holders,” while functioning as a single window for developers.
In November last year, news agency ANI filed a case in the Delhi High Court alleging its reports were used to train ChatGPT without authorisation. The Digital News Publishers Association later joined the matter.
India is among the fastest-growing AI markets. “India is our second-largest market in the world after the US and it may well become our largest market,” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently said, a point the working paper cites to point out that value derived from Indian linguistic and cultural datasets must be equitably shared.
Industry body Nasscom has opposed mandatory licensing and royalty payments, arguing instead for a text-and-data-mining exception with an opt-out mechanism. It warned that compulsory payments could constrain innovation and disproportionately burden young companies. However, the committee rejected that approach, stating that such exceptions are inconsistent with copyright protection and disadvantage smaller creators.
DPIIT will finalise its policy after receiving stakeholder responses over the next month.