{"id":4583,"date":"2025-12-12T11:08:01","date_gmt":"2025-12-12T05:38:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.aquartia.in\/?p=4583"},"modified":"2025-12-12T11:08:03","modified_gmt":"2025-12-12T05:38:03","slug":"indias-ai-copyright-framework-mandatory-royalty-model","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.aquartia.in\/index.php\/2025\/12\/12\/indias-ai-copyright-framework-mandatory-royalty-model\/","title":{"rendered":"India’s AI Copyright Framework: Mandatory Royalty Model"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Key Highlights<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Revolutionary Hybrid Model<\/strong>: India’s DPIIT proposes a\u00a0mandatory blanket licensing system<\/strong>\u2014unique globally\u2014where AI companies must pay government-set royalties to a centralized fund (CRCAT) for using copyrighted content in training, regardless of where the AI company operates.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. CRCAT: The Centralised Mechanism<\/strong>: A new umbrella body, Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training, will collect royalties from AI developers and proportionally distribute them to creators across multiple classes (text, music, images, video), streamlining compliance and ensuring unregistered creators also benefit.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. DNPA’s Legal Battle<\/strong>: India’s major news publishers (The Indian Express, NDTV, Hindustan Times) have joined ANI’s Delhi High Court lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging unlawful use of copyrighted news articles to train ChatGPT without license or compensation, testing whether AI training constitutes reproduction under Indian law.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Global Divergence<\/strong>: While the US relies on fair-use doctrine and the EU allows TDM with opt-outs, India chooses\u00a0mandatory collective licensing<\/strong>, positioning itself as a creator-centric, interventionist alternative\u2014a potential model for the Global South.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
    \n\n\n\n

    The Problem\u2014Why Creators Are Angry<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The Data Grab: A Silent Expropriation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    When OpenAI trained ChatGPT, Google built Gemini, and Meta created Llama, they didn’t ask permission. They didn’t negotiate licenses. They didn’t pay. They simply scraped the internet\u2014including millions of copyrighted books, news articles, academic papers, music, and images\u2014and fed them into algorithms that learned to generate human-like text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In India, this problem cuts deeper. OpenAI has acknowledged that India is its\u00a0second-largest market and a potential future number one<\/strong>. Yet, Indian creators\u2014journalists, authors, musicians, visual artists\u2014have seen their life work used without consent, without negotiation, and crucially,\u00a0without compensation<\/strong>. techcrunch<\/a><\/strong><\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    DNPA’s Intervention: The Legal Awakening<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    In January 2025, the news industry woke up. The\u00a0Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA)<\/strong>, representing 20 major publishers including\u00a0The Indian Express<\/em>,\u00a0NDTV<\/em>,\u00a0Hindustan Times<\/em>, and\u00a0India Today Group<\/em>, filed an intervention in the Delhi High Court’s ANI v OpenAI case. medianama<\/a><\/strong><\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Their grievance was stark: OpenAI had built a multi-billion-dollar AI company on the backs of Indian journalists’ work. Meanwhile, OpenAI had signed licensing deals with major international publishers<\/strong> (TIME, News Corp, The Atlantic) but offered nothing to Indian media houses.<\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The message was clear: If OpenAI values journalism globally, why does it refuse to value it in India?<\/strong><\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Copyright Question Nobody Wants to Answer<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Here’s the legal puzzle the Delhi High Court is grappling with: Does AI training constitute “reproduction” under the Copyright Act, 1957?<\/strong><\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    OpenAI’s defense has been blunt. Storing copyrighted content in a training dataset isn’t reproduction\u2014it’s transformation. The company argues that copyright protects only the “expression” of ideas, not ideas or facts themselves. Using facts to train an AI model is therefore legally defensible.<\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But creators counter: If copyright doesn’t protect journalists’ articles or authors’ books during AI training, then what’s the point of copyright in the AI era?<\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This tension\u2014unresolved in Indian courts\u2014is what the DPIIT’s proposal attempts to sidestep through legislation.<\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n

    Understanding the DPIIT Framework<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The “One Nation, One License, One Payment” Model<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    On December 9, 2025<\/strong>, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade released a 125-page working paper<\/strong> titled “One Nation, One License, One Payment: Balancing AI Innovation and Copyright.”<\/em><\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The proposal is radically simple: Rather than every AI company negotiating with every copyright holder (an impossible task),\u00a0all AI companies get automatic, blanket access to all lawfully-accessed copyrighted content in exchange for paying mandatory royalties into a centralized fund<\/strong>. voice.lapaas<\/a><\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    How the Royalty System Works<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Step 1: Automatic Access<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    AI companies can train on any copyrighted content they lawfully access\u2014downloaded from the internet, purchased, licensed\u2014without asking permission. No negotiation required.<\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Step 2: Royalty Obligation Upon Commercialization<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Once an AI system is deployed commercially and generating revenue, the developer must calculate its global revenue and pay a percentage (to be determined by a government committee) into the royalty pool.<\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Importantly, there are no retroactive upfront fees<\/strong>. Developers don’t pay during training or development\u2014only upon commercialization. This is meant to encourage innovation without crushing startups before they launch.<\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Step 3: Government Committee Sets the Rate<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A government-appointed Rate-Setting Committee<\/strong>\u2014comprising senior officials, legal experts, financial\/economic experts, technical experts, and representatives from CRCAT and the AI industry\u2014will determine the percentage royalty rate.<\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This rate will apply universally to all AI firms, regardless of size, location, or business model.<\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Step 4: Retroactive Payment Obligation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Here’s the shock: The royalty obligation applies even for models already trained on copyrighted content and currently generating revenue<\/strong>. OpenAI and Google must pay for past usage of Indian content.<\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This is unprecedented globally and creates an immediate, massive liability for Big Tech.<\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    CRCAT: The Centralized Collection Body<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    CRCAT will be a non-profit umbrella organization<\/strong> designated under the Copyright Act, 1957, composed of rights-holder associations and Collective Management Organisations (CMOs).<\/a>\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Key features:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n