{"id":358149,"date":"2025-08-28T13:00:51","date_gmt":"2025-08-28T07:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=358149"},"modified":"2025-08-28T14:53:10","modified_gmt":"2025-08-28T09:23:10","slug":"dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/","title":{"rendered":"Dilemmas of Anthropocentric Copyright Laws in a Technocentric Metaverse: Navigating the IPR Issues of BCI Based AI Generated Creations"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\n.animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 0s linear infinite;}\n@keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<h2>Introduction<\/h2>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"text-align: center;\">&#8220;Once we start seeing ourselves only in terms of data, we have reduced ourselves to something that can be bought and sold. This is particularly relevant in the ongoing debates about large language models (LLMs). When you write down a thought, it is tempting to think that your thought and the language data you create are the same&#8230;. Our minds produce outputs and data, but we are more than just what we generate. Just like we work to preserve the intangible cultural heritage of societies, we should also protect the intangible aspects of our mental worlds.&#8221;<a id=\"fnref1\" href=\"#fn1\" title=\"1. A. Valjamae, &#8220;We Should Protect the Intangible Aspects of Our Mental Worlds&#8221;, European Science-Media Hub (sciencemediahub.eu, 31-1-2024).\"><sup>1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-align: right;\">&#8212; Dr Ophelia Deroy<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">It is a well-established rule in the world of &#8220;intellectual property rights&#8221; that copyright cannot be provided for an &#8220;idea&#8221; but for the &#8220;expression&#8221; of that idea in its various forms. Time and again through various precedents, it is also well-established that this &#8220;idea-expression dichotomy&#8221; is sorted out by balancing the &#8220;sweat of brow&#8221; and &#8220;modicum of creativity&#8221; with all its nuances. This traditional rulebook of anthropocentric copyright laws faced a big blow with the invention of &#8220;artificial intelligence&#8221; and the boom of digital world. Suddenly the traditional copyright laws started appearing as means of colonial subjugation hampering the juggernaut of contemporary generative-artificial intelligence (AI) based creations and the technocentric metaverse made space for new laws to be created to cater the new age disputes. Adding turbidity to the murky waters of this digital conundrum came the new age brain-computer interface (BCI)-based neurotechnologies to obliviate the grey zone of idea and expression and opened up the &#8220;pandora&#8217;s box&#8221; where &#8220;idea&#8221; remains no longer distinctly separated from the expression through &#8220;BCI&#8221;. If articulation of &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">A Brief History of Time&#8221;<\/span> by famous scientist Dr Stephen Hawking is an example of triumph of science over grave debilitating disease like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), it is also an example of &#8220;BCI&#8221;-based creation where the &#8220;sweat of brow&#8221; is taken over by machine to express &#8220;ideas&#8221; from brain, leaving &#8220;modicum of creativity&#8221; at the discretion of &#8220;science&#8221;, creating novel copyright dilemmas for a digital metaverse while exploring the history of the universe. This dilemma goes beyond the issue of &#8220;fair dealing&#8221; of using copyrighted literature by scholars, or beyond the much-debated issue of original creator&#8217;s intellectual property right (IPR) violations while feeding &#8220;machine learning models&#8221; of &#8220;generative AI&#8221; upon those data for new creations and hits the very core of the copyright laws: whether &#8220;idea&#8221; can be copyrighted when creator is a machine? Whether the &#8220;sweat of brow&#8221; doctrine a dead concept? Whether the &#8220;modicum of creativity&#8221; can be attributed to a machine? Whether a machine can be provided with &#8220;legal personhood&#8221; making them able to hold the copyright of a creation? And finally, how to solve the riddle of legal accountability of &#8220;BCI&#8221; based AI-generated content in case of IPR infringement disputes? This article is an attempt to navigate through the conundrum of all these new age issues, exploring various facets of copyright dilemmas of a technocentric metaverse using the age-old anthropocentric copyright laws and precedents as the beacon.<\/p>\n<h2>New age tools: BCI and generative AI<\/h2>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Brain-computer interface (BCI)<\/span>: Brainchild of Jacques Vidal, electroencephalography (EEG) based BCI was first introduced to the world in 1973.<a id=\"fnref2\" href=\"#fn2\" title=\"2. J.J. Vidal, &#8220;Toward Direct Brain-Computer Communication&#8221;, (1973) 2 Annual Review of Biophysics and Bioengineering 157-180.\"><sup>2<\/sup><\/a> BCI is a mode of direct brain to machine interaction bypassing the physical body where a person can do things just by thinking of it and articulate new creations just by developing the idea in the mind. BCI interface contains sensors which detect the thought of a person through electrical signals of the brain and using AI based pattern recognising algorithms convert them into commands to be executed by the machine. BCI device can write poems, stories, novels or draw pictures as per the ideas of a person&#8217;s brain which in case of a normal person is done through his own physical hands.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Generative artificial intelligence (AI)<\/span>: Father of &#8220;artificial intelligence&#8221; John McCarthy defined AI as &#8220;&#8230; making a machine behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were so behaving&#8221;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">.<\/span> In pursuit of advancing this science of making the machines smarter, novel ideas and novel dilemmas have taken birth. From <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8220;<\/span>Turing test<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8221;<\/span> by Dr Alan Turing to evaluate &#8220;machine intelligence&#8221;<a id=\"fnref3\" href=\"#fn3\" title=\"3. A.M. Turing , &#8220;Computing Machinery and Intelligence&#8221;, (1950) 59 Mind 433.\"><sup>3<\/sup><\/a> to Dr Shlomit Yanisky Ravid&#8217;s discourse in cognitive abilities of AI systems, numerous instances have made it clear that AI systems are no longer in their nascent stage but have grown up enough to demand legal personhood and face liability issues.<a id=\"fnref4\" href=\"#fn4\" title=\"4. Yanisky-R.S. et al., &#8220;When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: The 3A Era and an Alternative Model for Patent Law&#8221;, (2018) 39 Cardozo Law Review 2215-2263.\"><sup>4<\/sup><\/a> Generative AI based machine learning models learn from the existing data and recreate new data as per need. &#8220;LLM&#8221; based chatbots like &#8220;ChatGPT&#8221; or text to image generator like &#8220;Midjourney&#8221; or &#8220;DALL-E&#8221; and text to video generator like &#8220;Sora&#8221; are commonly in use. Lately, a plethora of AI based apps have come up and being used by millions of people to create contents overwhelming the internet servers and raising serious copyright issues.<\/p>\n<h2>Deciphering &#8220;idea-expression dichotomy&#8221; at the deathbed of &#8220;sweat of brow doctrine&#8221;<\/h2>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Before analysing this topic lets go back to nineteenth century when cognitive psychology and neuroscience was still at its immature stage and neurotechnology was unheard of. In a time when &#8220;idea&#8221; of mind was still veiled behind the fog of ignorance, the US Supreme Court faced a novel dilemma to decide &#8220;whether a photograph can be copyrighted&#8221; in &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sarony<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref5\" href=\"#fn5\" title=\"5. 1884 SCC OnLine US SC 113 : 28 L Ed 349 : 111 US 53, 55 (1884).\"><sup>5<\/sup><\/a>, considering the fact that it is &#8220;not written or created by an author (literary production)&#8221; but a production of photography machine (camera). Interestingly, the riddle was solved by the wise Judges holding &#8220;photograph&#8221; as a &#8220;visible expression&#8221; of &#8220;ideas in mind of author&#8221;. Almost a century and half later in &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Naruto<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">David John<\/span> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Slater<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref6\" href=\"#fn6\" title=\"6. 2018 SCC OnLine US CA 9C 94.\"><sup>6<\/sup><\/a>, well-known as &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">The Monkey Selfies case<\/span>&#8221;, when the same issue of photography was created by a monkey instead of human, it was held, &#8220;the Copyright Office will not register works produced by &#8216;nature, animals or plants&#8217;&#8221;, as that &#8220;Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have repeatedly referred to &#8216;persons&#8217; or &#8216;human beings&#8217; when analysing authorship under the Copyright Act, 1976<a id=\"fnref7\" href=\"#fn7\" title=\"7. Copyright Act, 1976, &sect; 101.\"><sup>7<\/sup><\/a>.&#8221; The &#8220;Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices&#8221; specifically mentions, &#8220;to qualify as a work of &#8216;authorship&#8217; a work must be created by a human being&#8221;. So, what happens if the &#8220;expression&#8221; of an idea is not physically created by the &#8220;human author&#8221; but instead created by &#8220;mind&#8221; using &#8220;artificial intelligence&#8221; which is fed upon a million other creations? Who would be recognised as the author of such creations? And who would be held liable for the copyright breach of other creators when the expression is generated by such &#8220;non-human&#8221; entities? Just like the eighteenth century &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Burrow-Giles Lithographic case<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref8\" href=\"#fn8\" title=\"8. 1884 SCC OnLine US SC 113 : 28 L Ed 349 : 111 US 53 (1884).\"><sup>8<\/sup><\/a>, standing at this liminal age of digital transformation, we are facing another novel dilemma, &#8220;Can there be a copyright for the photograph or image deciphered from human brain using BCI?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In disputes regarding copyright, while the doctrine of &#8220;sweat of the brow&#8221;<a id=\"fnref9\" href=\"#fn9\" title=\"9. Genesis 3:19, &#8220;By the Sweat of Your Brow You Will Eat Your Food Until You Return to the Ground, Since from it You Were Taken; for Dust You are and to Dust You Will Return&#8221;, The Bible Hub [New International Version (NIV)]. See also, judgment by &#8220;House of Lords&#8221; in Walter v. Lane, 1900 AC 539 and judgment in Cummins v. Bond, (1927) 1 Ch 167. See also, Cousins, Wendy, &#8220;Writer, Medium, Suffragette, Spy? The Unseen Adventures of Geraldine Cummins&#8221;, (2008) 45 The Paranormal Review 3-7. See also, Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd., (1964) 1 WLR 273.\"><sup>9<\/sup><\/a> had been developed through case precedents like &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Walter<\/span> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">case<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref10\" href=\"#fn10\" title=\"10. Walter case, 1900 AC 539.\"><sup>10<\/sup><\/a> and &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Cummins<\/span> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">case<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref11\" href=\"#fn11\" title=\"11. Cummins case, (1927) 1 Ch 167.\"><sup>11<\/sup><\/a>, the concept of &#8220;modicum of creativity&#8221;<a id=\"fnref12\" href=\"#fn12\" title=\"12. Flavour of minimum requirement of creativity, Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1.\"><sup>12<\/sup><\/a> was highlighted in cases like &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Eastern Book Co.<\/span> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">case<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref13\" href=\"#fn13\" title=\"13. (2008) 1 SCC 1.\"><sup>13<\/sup><\/a> and tests like &#8220;Lay observer&#8217;s test&#8221; was resorted to in &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">R.G. Anand<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Delux Films<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref14\" href=\"#fn14\" title=\"14. (1978) 4 SCC 118.\"><sup>14<\/sup><\/a> to solve the dilemma of &#8220;idea-expression dichotomy&#8221; in &#8220;substantial similarity in copyright infringement&#8221;. In &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Shamoil Ahmad Khan<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Falguni Shah<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref15\" href=\"#fn15\" title=\"15. 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 665.\"><sup>15<\/sup><\/a> Bombay High Court developed &#8220;extraction test&#8221; stating that &#8220;seed of an idea grows into a theme&#8221;. No doubt these were only continuation of precedents that started long back in &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Baker<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Selden<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref16\" href=\"#fn16\" title=\"16. 1879 SCC OnLine US SC 4 : 25 L Ed 841 :101 US 99 (1879).\"><sup>16<\/sup><\/a> and evolved in &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Mazer<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Stein<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref17\" href=\"#fn17\" title=\"17. 1954 SCC OnLine US SC 23 : 98 L Ed 630 : 347 US 201 (1954).\"><sup>17<\/sup><\/a> delineating &#8220;idea&#8221; as different from &#8220;expression&#8221;. But as science advanced, BCI started deciphering ideas of brain, and AI took charge of expressing those ideas. In the &#8220;metaverse&#8221; of &#8220;virtual reality&#8221; computer programmes became the architects of &#8220;sc&egrave;nes &agrave; faire&#8221;<a id=\"fnref18\" href=\"#fn18\" title=\"18. &#8220;Scene that must be done&#8221; (French) cited in Cain v. Universal Pictures Co., Inc., 1942 SCC OnLine Dis Crt US 1. See also, J. Beeber and M. Wogan, &#8220;Is Sc&egrave;nes &agrave; Faire Really &#8216;Necessary&#8217;?&#8221;, 15(1) Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal (Spring 2004).\"><sup>18<\/sup><\/a> and gradually the importance of the concept of &#8220;sweat of brow&#8221; for expressing an idea which gave weight to the demands of IPR lost its relevance.<a id=\"fnref19\" href=\"#fn19\" title=\"19. Sweat of brow doctrine was rejected by US Supreme Court in Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Inc., 1991 SCC OnLine US SC 46 : 113 L Ed 2d 358 : 499 US 340 (1991).\"><sup>19<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"font-style: italic; background-image: linear-gradient(to left, #FFFFFF, rgb(236, 198, 198));\">What can be copyrighted?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 12.5pt;\">&#8220;The<\/span> Copyright Act, 1957<span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 12.5pt;\">&#8221;<a id=\"fnref20\" href=\"#fn20\" title=\"20. Copyright Act, 1957, S. 13.\"><sup>20<\/sup><\/a> of India in &#8220;Section 13&#8221; mentions the creations that can be copyrighted as: &#8220;copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of works: (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">a<\/span>) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works; (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">b<\/span>) cinematograph films; and (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">c<\/span>) sound recording.&#8221; On the other hand the US &#8220;Copyright Act of 1976&#8221; provides &#8220;copyright protection&#8221; to &#8220;original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device,&#8221;<a id=\"fnref21\" href=\"#fn21\" title=\"21. Copyright Act, 1976, 17 USC, &sect;&sect; 101-122.\"><sup>21<\/sup><\/a> and contains four vaguely defined criteria: (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">i<\/span>) &#8220;work of authorship&#8221;; (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">ii<\/span>) &#8220;originality&#8221;; (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">iii<\/span>) &#8220;fixation&#8221;; and (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">iv<\/span>) &#8220;idea-expression dichotomy&#8221;.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"font-style: italic; background-image: linear-gradient(to left, #FFFFFF, rgb(236, 198, 198));\">Who is an author?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Section 2(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">d<\/span>) of the Copyright Act, 1957 while defining &#8220;author&#8221; mentions various forms of &#8220;human author&#8221; be it a &#8220;composer&#8221;, &#8220;artist&#8221;, &#8220;photographer&#8221; or a &#8220;film producer&#8221;. Nowhere in the Act any provision has been kept to provide &#8220;AI&#8221; any kind of recognition as an &#8220;author&#8221;. Though Section 2(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">d<\/span>)(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">vi<\/span>) of the Copyright Act, 1957 mentions that &#8220;person creating computer generated work&#8221; is the author of the same. That means &#8220;generative AI&#8221;, even if generates a creation itself never gets any recognition as per the Copyright Act, 1957 unless a human claims authorship for the creation. Certainly, mention of &#8220;granting copyright protection&#8221; for the period of &#8220;lifetime of author plus fifty years after death&#8221; in &#8220;The Berne Convention&#8221;<a id=\"fnref22\" href=\"#fn22\" title=\"22. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886, Art. 3(1), 331 UNTS 217 (1886).\"><sup>22<\/sup><\/a> points towards a mortal &#8220;human&#8221; author and not an immortal machine. UK&#8217;s &#8220;Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 (GB) (CDPA)&#8221;<a id=\"fnref23\" href=\"#fn23\" title=\"23. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 (GB).\"><sup>23<\/sup><\/a> provides copyright protection to the AI generated work but does not recognise AI as author. Rather the person who arranges for the creation through AI is given copyright. US copyright laws throughout the history have been strong supporter of human author. Though in &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Goldstein<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">California<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref24\" href=\"#fn24\" title=\"24. 1973 SCC OnLine US SC 135 : 37 L Ed 2d 163 : 412 US 546, 561 (1973).\"><sup>24<\/sup><\/a>, it held that definition of &#8220;creator&#8221; or &#8220;author&#8221; &#8220;have not been construed in their narrow literal sense but, rather, with the reach necessary to reflect the broad scope of constitutional principles&#8221;,<a id=\"fnref25\" href=\"#fn25\" title=\"25. Goldstein case, 1973 SCC OnLine US SC 135 : 37 L Ed 2d 163 : 412 US 546, 561 (1973).\"><sup>25<\/sup><\/a> yet in practicality all application for copyright protection of AI generated content has met with similar fate in the US copyright office. Refusal of copyright protection to &#8220;A Recent Entrance to Paradise&#8221;, an artwork created by AI system &#8220;Creativity Machine&#8221; (developed by Dr Stephen L. Thaler) or providing partial and limited copyright to graphic novel &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Zarya of the Dawn<\/span>&#8221; (Author Kris Kashtanova) having images generated by &#8220;AI system&#8221; &#8220;Midjourney&#8221; shows the importance given to &#8220;human involvement&#8221; by the US copyright laws. Perhaps South Africa&#8217;s &#8220;Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC)&#8221; was the first office to grant authorship to an AI system when it recognised Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS) of Dr Thaler as an author in July 2021. In 2020 Indian copyright office for the first-time had recognised AI based painting app Robust Artificially Intelligent Graphics and Art Visualiser (RAGHAV) as a co-author of artwork &#8220;SURYAST&#8221; developed by feeding the AI system with Vincent Van Gogh&#8217;s art style, though sole authorship of the AI system without human author (Ankit Sahni) was rejected. Withdrawal notice of the same came from the copyright office a year later, but as a positive outcome the &#8220;Parliamentary Standing Committee&#8221; recommended to review existing copyright laws to cater the AI and AI related inventions. Still when it came to actions, to everybody&#8217;s surprise, the Press Release by &#8220;Ministry of Commerce &amp; Industry&#8221; in its statement in 9-2-2024 denied the need to create any separate rights for &#8220;AI generated works&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-style: italic; background-image: linear-gradient(to left, #FFFFFF, rgb(236, 198, 198));\">The dilemma of &#8220;idea-expression dichotomy&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 12.5pt;\">Article 9(2) of the<\/span> Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights<span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 12.5pt;\"> (TRIPS), 1995 (TRIPS Agreement)<a id=\"fnref26\" href=\"#fn26\" title=\"26. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 1995, Art. 9(2).\"><sup>26<\/sup><\/a> or Article 2 of the &#8220;WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), 1996&#8221;<a id=\"fnref27\" href=\"#fn27\" title=\"27. WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), 1996, Art. 2.\"><sup>27<\/sup><\/a> resonate the same perception as the &#8220;Guidance Notes&#8221; on the <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8220;<\/span>Berne Convention<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8221;<\/span> and so does the landmark judgments of famous cases like &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Donoghue<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Allied Newspapers Ltd.<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref28\" href=\"#fn28\" title=\"28. 1938 Ch 106 : (1937) 3 All ER 503.\"><sup>28<\/sup><\/a> (held that &#8220;there is no copyright of an idea&#8221;<a id=\"fnref29\" href=\"#fn29\" title=\"29. Donoghue case, 1938 Ch 106 : (1937) 3 All ER 503.\"><sup>29<\/sup><\/a> and &#8220;ideas can be communicated but not copyrighted&#8221;) or &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Barbara Taylor Bradford<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sahara Media Entertainment Ltd.<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref30\" href=\"#fn30\" title=\"30. 2003 SCC OnLine Cal 323.\"><sup>30<\/sup><\/a>, (held that &#8220;Copyright protected originality of expression and not the originality of idea behind it&#8221;<a id=\"fnref31\" href=\"#fn31\" title=\"31. Barbara Taylor Bradford case, 2003 SCC OnLine Cal 323.\"><sup>31<\/sup><\/a>), all establishing copyright to be limited to &#8220;expression&#8221; and not &#8220;idea&#8221;.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Taking cue from the &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Burrow-Giles Lithographic case<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref32\" href=\"#fn32\" title=\"32. 1884 SCC OnLine US SC 113 : 28 L Ed 349 : 111 US 53, 55 (1884).\"><sup>32<\/sup><\/a>, one might ask, if an image generated by the &#8220;hardware&#8221; called &#8220;camera&#8221; can be copyrighted then why cannot an image generated by a &#8220;software&#8221; named &#8220;Midjourney&#8221; or &#8220;Creativity Machine&#8221; be copyright protected? Going to our main focus, question arises, what would happen if the image were generated by the &#8220;BCI&#8221; from the mind of the author. Certainly, as per present copyright laws which were made before the BCI-era, it would be considered mere an idea and machine being non-human entity cannot be an author. So, who would be regarded as the author if ideas cannot be copyrighted? Who is giving expression to the idea? Certainly, it is the &#8220;BCI&#8221; device with AI based algorithms which is expressing that idea in art form. Will then a disabled person who cannot express the ideas of his brain through his amputated physical limbs and instead expressed them through BCI-devices using AI based algorithms be deprived of copyright of his own ideas expressed with assistance of machines? With the advancement of neurotechnology, the question of &#8220;authorship&#8221; converts into the dilemma of &#8220;idea-expression dichotomy&#8221; as the gap between &#8220;idea&#8221; and &#8220;expression&#8221; gets obliviated in the technocentric future.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-style: italic; background-image: linear-gradient(to left, #FFFFFF, rgb(236, 198, 198));\">Patenting &#8220;concept&#8221; as abstract &#8220;Idea&#8221; gets material form<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">As science deciphers &#8220;idea&#8221; into &#8220;electrical activities&#8221; of cerebral cortex and &#8220;BCI&#8221; based AI algorithms give material form to those potential differences, AI based mind-controlled devices narrow down the distance between &#8220;idea&#8217;s and expression&#8217;s&#8221; burying the &#8220;sweat of brow doctrine&#8221; and becomes the medium of realising the &#8220;modicum of creativity&#8221;. What to copyright then in such a situation? As we move towards the metaverse of &#8220;virtual reality&#8221;, copyrighting the &#8220;concept&#8221; would be the wise middle path taken to solve the &#8220;idea-expression dilemma&#8221;.<\/p>\n<h2>Other copyright issues of BCI-AI interface generated creations<\/h2>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 12.5pt;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8220;Thought broadcasting rights&#8221; in BCI era<\/span>: As thought broadcasting becomes a reality with BCI-AI interface, and communicating through BCI-devices without speech-based telecommunication brings hope to patients of neurological diseases and as storing of brain-scanned data in the cloud and broadcasting that data no longer remains an impossible task, novel issues of broadcasting rights come into picture. &#8220;The<\/span> Copyright Act, 1957<span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 12.5pt;\">&#8221; under Chapter VIII provides copyrights to &#8220;broadcasting organisation&#8221; and Section 37<a id=\"fnref33\" href=\"#fn33\" title=\"33. Copyright Act, 1957, S. 37.\"><sup>33<\/sup><\/a> under this chapter specifically mentions &#8220;broadcast reproduction rights&#8221;. But the question remains, who gets the broadcasting-rights of &#8220;brain data&#8221;? Is it the BCI device that is broadcasting brain data, is it the third person creating the BCI device or is it the brain itself which is producing the data?<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Copyright issues of brain-net<\/span>: Just like connecting multiple computers through intra-net, it is now possible to connect multiple brains with BCI-AI interface devices. What happens to the copyright of the creation of that brain-net with conjoint effort of multiple BCI devices is a novel question hard to answer with archaic copyright laws.<\/p>\n<h2>Fair use, rights of AI models for learning on datasets and legal accountability of infringements<\/h2>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In 1841 J. Joseph Story&#8217;s judgment in &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Folsom<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Marsh<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref34\" href=\"#fn34\" title=\"34. 1841 SCC OnLine Dis Crt US 1.\"><sup>34<\/sup><\/a> paved the way for establishing &#8220;four-factor analysis&#8221; used to determine &#8220;fair use&#8221; in US common law.<\/p>\n<p>The four factors taken into consideration were:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;\">(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">a<\/span>) &#8220;What is the purpose and character of the use?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;\">(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">b<\/span>) What is the nature of the copyrighted work used?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;\">(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">c<\/span>) What is the amount and substantiality of the original work used?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\">(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">d<\/span>) What is the effect upon original work&#8217;s value?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the provision of &#8220;fair use&#8221; got incorporated into the &#8220;Copyright Act of 1976&#8221; Section 107<a id=\"fnref35\" href=\"#fn35\" title=\"35. Copyright Act, 1976, S. 107. (United States)\"><sup>35<\/sup><\/a>. Conventionally, the Supreme Court of USA had categorised the provision of &#8220;fair use&#8221; as a sort of &#8220;affirmative defence&#8221;, as in &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Campbell<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref36\" href=\"#fn36\" title=\"36. 1994 SCC OnLine US SC 22 : 127 L Ed 2d 500 : 510 US 569 (1994).\"><sup>36<\/sup><\/a> In other words, in cases of &#8220;copyright infringement&#8221;, the defendant had to bear the burden of proving that it was a &#8220;fair use&#8221; and &#8220;not an infringement&#8221;. But in &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Stephanie Lenz<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Universal Music Corpn.<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref37\" href=\"#fn37\" title=\"37. 2015 SCC OnLine US CA 9C 1.\"><sup>37<\/sup><\/a>, it was held that &#8220;fair use&#8221; is not merely a &#8220;defence to an infringement claim&#8221;, but it is an &#8220;expressly authorised right&#8221;. It also stated that it can be considered &#8220;an exception&#8221; to the &#8220;exclusive rights&#8221; granted to the original creator by copyright law. Section 107 of the US Copyright Act, 1976 states that fair use for purpose of &#8212; &#8220;criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research&#8221; is not an &#8220;infringement of copyright&#8221;. The Berne Convention did not mention provisions such as &#8220;fair use&#8221; or &#8220;fair dealing&#8221;, but it churned out the &#8220;Three-Step Test&#8221; in Article 9(2), which articulated a rough framework for all the World Trade Organisation (WTO) nations to make their own &#8220;national exceptions for fair use&#8221;. It says original work can be used in: &#8220;(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">i<\/span>) special cases; (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">ii<\/span>) the original work must not be exploited by the reproductive work; (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">iii<\/span>) the new work must not be prejudicial against the interest of the original author&#8221;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">.<\/span> &#8220;The Copyright Act, 1957&#8221; has provisions for allowance of reproduction of certain copyrighted material without the permission of the original copyright holder. Section 52<a id=\"fnref38\" href=\"#fn38\" title=\"38. Copyright Act, 1957, S. 52.\"><sup>38<\/sup><\/a> of the &#8220;Copyright Act, 1957&#8221; states: &#8220;Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright.&#8221; Section 52(1) enlists the &#8220;Acts which shall not constitute an infringement of copyright.&#8221; The Copyright Act, 1957, Section 52(1)(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">a<\/span>) mentions &#8220;fair dealing.&#8221; It states:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\">52. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright<\/span>.&#8212;(1)(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">a<\/span>) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely: (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">a<\/span>) a fair dealing with any work, not being a computer program for the purpose of: (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">i<\/span>) private or personal use, including research; (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">ii<\/span>) criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work; (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">iii<\/span>) the reporting of current events and current affairs, including the reporting of a lecture delivered in public.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Whether training of AI models on pre-existing literature or artworks is fair use needs to be analysed on case-to-case basis, but the present copyright laws of India remain vague in this matter. Australia and UK provide certain exceptions for &#8220;text and data mining&#8221; by AI models for common good. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998 (US)<a id=\"fnref39\" href=\"#fn39\" title=\"39. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998 (US).\"><sup>39<\/sup><\/a> (DMCA) is not clear about it. Hong Kong provides some exceptions for &#8220;reasonable use&#8221;. Yet one thing remains common throughout the world and that is the growing concern regarding copyright violation by various AI systems, be it &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Getty Images<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Stability AI Ltd.<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref40\" href=\"#fn40\" title=\"40. 2025 SCC OnLine EWHC 1.\"><sup>40<\/sup><\/a>, violations by &#8220;Open AI&#8221;, legal database use by &#8220;Ross AI&#8221;, music rights violations by &#8220;Anthropic AI&#8221; or the recent &#8220;Studio Ghibli&#8221; (Miyazaki) fever throughout the net world. Legal accountability of all the violations remains a grey zone due to lack of proper laws.<\/p>\n<h2>AI generated creation as &#8220;derivative work&#8221;<\/h2>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Berne Convention (1886) describes derivative works in Article 2(3) as &#8220;new creative work based on or derived from existing works&#8221; and copyrighting such works require distinct difference from the original creation and not merely rearrangement of previous data. The insight of AI to generate new creation is well analysed by Dr Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid and other researchers but the copyright of AI generated creation varies in different part of the world. In 2021 European Commission proposed first EU AI law. EU does not recognise AI as the author of creation. UK gives copyright to the person who arranges for the creation. Hong Kong does not see it in same frame as traditionally developed creations. In September 2021 &#8220;legal framework for AI&#8221; was passed by Brazil&#8217;s legislature. South Africa in fact was the first nation to give authorship to AI system. India&#8217;s the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act, 2023)<a id=\"fnref41\" href=\"#fn41\" title=\"41. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.\"><sup>41<\/sup><\/a> remains vague regarding AI generated creation as did the previous &#8220;Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021&#8221;<a id=\"fnref42\" href=\"#fn42\" title=\"42. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.\"><sup>42<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n<h2>Conclusion<\/h2>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 12.5pt;\">From &#8220;Statute of Anne&#8221;<a id=\"fnref43\" href=\"#fn43\" title=\"43. The Statute of Anne, enacted in Great Britain in 1710, is widely considered the first copyright statute.\"><sup>43<\/sup><\/a> of 18th century Britain to &#8220;Convention of Berne&#8221;<a id=\"fnref44\" href=\"#fn44\" title=\"44. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886, Art. 3(1), 331 UNTS 217 (1886).\"><sup>44<\/sup><\/a> of 19th century Europe and from &#8220;WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT)&#8221; of 20th century to 21st century novel issues of &#8220;BCI&#8221; based metaverse, the same question that puzzled the US Supreme Court in &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Burrow-Giles Lithographic case<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref45\" href=\"#fn45\" title=\"45. Burrow-Giles Lithographic case, 1884 SCC OnLine US SC 113 : 28 L Ed 349 : 111 US 53, 55 (1884).\"><sup>45<\/sup><\/a> haunts us at the liminal dawn of a new age in a new form and makes us think over and again, whether an image perceived by the eyes of a person and later deciphered from the mind of that person using a machine be copyrighted in the same way an image caught using fingers of that person is copyrighted? This question becomes more important as we enter the field of &#8220;disability rights&#8221; where using machine is not a choice but a need. With advancement of science, now we know that our eyes are nothing but an advanced bio-camera and our brain a very advanced data processor and bio-databank. The techno-centricity of an anthropologically disabled person&#8217;s creation puts the archaic anthropogenic copyright laws in question and demands a discourse on this aspect of utilitarianism in an egalitarian world vision. Certainly, the vision of egalitarianism faces the hurdle of affordability with digital divide seeding a nidus of neo-colonial system where intellectual property right of technocentric creations get ensnared within the dilemma of acceptability and affordability. The disability of the Copyright Acts in addressing the intricacies of copyright issues inherent to disability rights of a necessity-based man-machine hybrid takes us to the transhumanist reality of posthumanism. The ethical basis of post-human laws and the IPR issues of man-machine interface does not lie in mind-controlled drones of warfare or mind-controlled video games, but it lies in the need-based development of such technologies for realising the disability rights of the present era. &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">A Brief History of Time<\/span>&#8221;<a id=\"fnref46\" href=\"#fn46\" title=\"46. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Bantam Books, 1988).\"><sup>46<\/sup><\/a> not only gave us a clue to the origin of the universe, but it also gave hope to a million disabled persons who saw a way to express, create and author using technological advancements like BCI based AI models and thus harbingered a new era of copyright dilemmas. As &#8220;neurotechnology&#8221; advances, the right step towards developing a conducive world surrounding it would be to balance anthropocentric rights with technocentric aspirations as stated in &#8220;Le&oacute;n Declaration on European Neurotechnology&#8221;<a id=\"fnref47\" href=\"#fn47\" title=\"47. Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, &#8220;Le&oacute;n Declaration on European Neurotechnology: A Human Focused and Rights&#8217;-Oriented Approach&#8221;, (Leon, 24-10-2023).\"><sup>47<\/sup><\/a> in October 2023 and thus it would be a step towards protecting IPR of BCI generated creations in an era of virtual reality (VR). Steps are also needed to ensure &#8220;privacy rights&#8221; and provision of &#8220;consent&#8221; described in &#8220;General Data Protection Regulation&#8221; (GDPR)<a id=\"fnref48\" href=\"#fn48\" title=\"48. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (gdpr.eu).\"><sup>48<\/sup><\/a> of EU to include that of BCI generated data as well. Present copyright laws do not answer the novel questions that the BCI era asks and in this new era concepts on the intangible mind needs to be protected to secure the tangible creations of the BCI-AI interface using our mental hues.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-decoration: underline; text-underline-style: solid; text-underline-mode: continuous; text-underline-color: #004377; color: #004377;\">Note: <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">This article was selected as one of the winners in an essay writing competition organised by the Centre of Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Rights, Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<hr\/>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*National Law School of India University, Bangalore. Author can be reached at: <a href=\"https:\/\/mailto:ani950id@gmail.com\/\" target=\"_blank\">ani950id@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn1\" href=\"#fnref1\">1.<\/a> A. Valjamae, &#8220;We Should Protect the Intangible Aspects of Our Mental Worlds&#8221;, European Science-Media Hub (sciencemediahub.eu, 31-1-2024).<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn2\" href=\"#fnref2\">2.<\/a> J.J. Vidal, &#8220;Toward Direct Brain-Computer Communication&#8221;, (1973) 2 Annual Review of Biophysics and Bioengineering 157-180.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn3\" href=\"#fnref3\">3.<\/a> A.M. Turing , &#8220;Computing Machinery and Intelligence&#8221;, (1950) 59 Mind 433.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn4\" href=\"#fnref4\">4.<\/a> Yanisky-R.S. et al., &#8220;When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: The 3A Era and an Alternative Model for Patent Law&#8221;, (2018) 39 Cardozo Law Review 2215-2263.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn5\" href=\"#fnref5\">5.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000413470\" target=\"_blank\">1884 SCC OnLine US SC 113<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/2L5APyhO\" target=\"_blank\">: 28 L Ed 349 : 111 US 53, 55 (1884).<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn6\" href=\"#fnref6\">6.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/y30BAQL7\" target=\"_blank\">2018 SCC OnLine US CA 9C 94.<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn7\" href=\"#fnref7\">7.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/L8sdWmP8\" target=\"_blank\">Copyright Act, 1976, &sect; 101.<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn8\" href=\"#fnref8\">8.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000413470\" target=\"_blank\">1884 SCC OnLine US SC 113<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/2L5APyhO\" target=\"_blank\">: 28 L Ed 349 : 111 US 53 (1884).<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn9\" href=\"#fnref9\">9.<\/a> Genesis 3:19, &#8220;By the Sweat of Your Brow You Will Eat Your Food Until You Return to the Ground, Since from it You Were Taken; for Dust You are and to Dust You Will Return&#8221;, The Bible Hub [New International Version (NIV)]. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">See also<\/span>, judgment by &#8220;House of Lords&#8221; in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/QdRrxRi3\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Walter<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Lane<\/span><\/span>,<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002352037\" target=\"_blank\">1900 AC 539<\/a> and judgment in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/eG7pZtv3\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Cummins<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Bond<\/span><\/span>,<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002410665\" target=\"_blank\">(1927) 1 Ch 167<\/a>. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">See also<\/span>, Cousins, Wendy, &#8220;Writer, Medium, Suffragette, Spy? The Unseen Adventures of Geraldine Cummins&#8221;, (2008) 45 The Paranormal Review 3-7. See also, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/y4XvDA63\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Ladbroke (Football) Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">William Hill (Football) Ltd.<\/span><\/span>,<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002347278\" target=\"_blank\">(1964) 1 WLR 273<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn10\" href=\"#fnref10\">10.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/QdRrxRi3\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\"><span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 9.0pt;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Walter<\/span><\/span> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">case<\/span><\/span>,<\/a><span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 9.0pt;\"> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002352037\" target=\"_blank\">1900 AC 539<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn11\" href=\"#fnref11\">11.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/eG7pZtv3\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\"><span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 9.0pt;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Cummins<\/span><\/span> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">case<\/span>,<\/span><\/a><span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 9.0pt;\"> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002410665\" target=\"_blank\">(1927) 1 Ch 167<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn12\" href=\"#fnref12\">12.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/w125y7B7\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\"><span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 9.0pt;\">Flavo<\/span>u<span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 9.0pt;\">r of minimum requirement of creativity, <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Eastern Book Co<\/span><\/span>. <span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 9.0pt;\">v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">D.B. Modak<\/span><\/span>, (2008) 1 SCC 1<\/span><\/a><span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 9.0pt;\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn13\" href=\"#fnref13\">13.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/w125y7B7\" target=\"_blank\">(2008) 1 SCC 1<\/a><span class=\"Hyperlink\"><span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 9.0pt;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/w125y7B7\" target=\"_blank\">.<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn14\" href=\"#fnref14\">14.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000011134\" target=\"_blank\">(1978) 4 SCC 118<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn15\" href=\"#fnref15\">15.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/qE507o7k\" target=\"_blank\">2020 SCC OnLine Bom 665.<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn16\" href=\"#fnref16\">16.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/nz392ys5\" target=\"_blank\">1879 SCC OnLine US SC 4 :<\/a><span style=\"font-weight: bold; Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 9.0pt; vertical-align: super;\"><\/span> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/nz392ys5\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\">25 L Ed 841 :<span style=\"Open Sans&quot;; font-size: 9.0pt;\">101 US 99 (1879).<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn17\" href=\"#fnref17\">17.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000429189\" target=\"_blank\">1954 SCC OnLine US SC 23<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/kwSizRiw\" target=\"_blank\">: 98 L Ed 630 : 347 US 201 (1954).<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn18\" href=\"#fnref18\">18.<\/a> &#8220;Scene that must be done&#8221; (French) cited in<\/span> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/oNyv0F25\" target=\"_blank\">Cain v. Universal Pictures Co., Inc., <\/a><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/oNyv0F25\" target=\"_blank\">1942 SCC OnLine Dis Crt US 1<\/a>. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">See also<\/span>, J. Beeber and M. Wogan, &#8220;Is Sc&egrave;nes &agrave; Faire Really &#8216;Necessary&#8217;?&#8221;, 15(1) Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal (Spring 2004).<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn19\" href=\"#fnref19\">19.<\/a> Sweat of brow doctrine was rejected by US Supreme Court in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/GR0P99It\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Feist Publications Inc.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Rural Telephone Service Co. Inc.<\/span><\/span>,<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000437151\" target=\"_blank\">1991 SCC OnLine US SC 46<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/GR0P99It\" target=\"_blank\">: <\/a><\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/GR0P99It\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\">113 L Ed 2d 358 : 499 US 340 (1991).<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn20\" href=\"#fnref20\">20.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/m8xw4jtx\" target=\"_blank\">Copyright Act, 1957, S.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001532701\" target=\"_blank\">13<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn21\" href=\"#fnref21\">21.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/L8sdWmP8\" target=\"_blank\">Copyright Act, 1976, 17 USC, &sect;&sect; 101-122.<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn22\" href=\"#fnref22\">22.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/m4KEZrv4\" target=\"_blank\">Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886, Art. 3(1), 331 UNTS 217 (1886).<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn23\" href=\"#fnref23\">23.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/0TvpPGBV\" target=\"_blank\">Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 (GB).<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn24\" href=\"#fnref24\">24.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000433097\" target=\"_blank\">1973 SCC OnLine US SC 135<\/a><\/span> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/V86t0YR2\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\">:<\/span> 37 L Ed 2d 163 : 412 US 546, 561 (1973).<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn25\" href=\"#fnref25\">25.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/V86t0YR2\" target=\"_blank\">Goldstein case<\/a>,<span style=\"Open Sans&quot;;\"> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000433097\" target=\"_blank\">1973 SCC OnLine US SC 135<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/V86t0YR2\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\">: 37 L Ed 2d 163 : 412 US 546, 561 (1973).<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn26\" href=\"#fnref26\">26.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/gphQ4J7B\" target=\"_blank\">Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 1995, Art. 9(2).<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn27\" href=\"#fnref27\">27.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/5twpbiOp\" target=\"_blank\">WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), 1996, Art. 2.<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn28\" href=\"#fnref28\">28.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/F9jsFGpT\" target=\"_blank\">1938 Ch 106 : (1937) 3 All ER 503<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn29\" href=\"#fnref29\">29.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/F9jsFGpT\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Donoghue case<\/span><\/span>, <\/a><\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/F9jsFGpT\" target=\"_blank\">1938 Ch 106 : (1937) 3 All ER 503<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn30\" href=\"#fnref30\">30.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002218068\" target=\"_blank\">2003 SCC OnLine Cal 323<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn31\" href=\"#fnref31\">31.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/0409pAs3\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Barbara Taylor Bradford case<\/span>,<\/a><span style=\"Open Sans&quot;;\"> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002218068\" target=\"_blank\">2003 SCC OnLine Cal 323<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn32\" href=\"#fnref32\">32.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000413470\" target=\"_blank\">1884 SCC OnLine US SC 113<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/2L5APyhO\" target=\"_blank\">: 28 L Ed 349 : 111 US 53, 55 (1884).<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn33\" href=\"#fnref33\">33.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/0Akf5fPE\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\">Copyright Act, 1957, S. 37<span style=\"Open Sans&quot;;\">.<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn34\" href=\"#fnref34\">34.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/uHLrqvUW\" target=\"_blank\">1841 SCC OnLine Dis Crt US 1.<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn35\" href=\"#fnref35\">35.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/L8sdWmP8\" target=\"_blank\">Copyright Act, 1976, S. 107. (United States)<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn36\" href=\"#fnref36\">36.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/FL695Q8l\" target=\"_blank\">1994 SCC OnLine US SC 22 : 127 L Ed 2d 500 : 510 US 569 (1994).<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn37\" href=\"#fnref37\">37.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/5pB8Ilcq\" target=\"_blank\">2015 SCC OnLine US CA 9C 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn38\" href=\"#fnref38\">38.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/2fbh55Hy\" target=\"_blank\">Copyright Act, 1957, S. 52.<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn39\" href=\"#fnref39\">39.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/6mf6hjqX\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\">Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998<span style=\"Open Sans&quot;;\"> (US)<\/span><\/span><\/a><span style=\"Open Sans&quot;;\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn40\" href=\"#fnref40\">40.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/TA5k5S2m\" target=\"_blank\">2025 SCC OnLine EWHC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn41\" href=\"#fnref41\">41.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/RezgfWHP\" target=\"_blank\">Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn42\" href=\"#fnref42\">42.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/8OCMsY3m\" target=\"_blank\">Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn43\" href=\"#fnref43\">43.<\/a> The Statute of Anne, enacted in Great Britain in 1710, is widely considered the first copyright statute.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn44\" href=\"#fnref44\">44.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/m4KEZrv4\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"Hyperlink\">Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886, Art. 3(1)<\/span>, 331 UNTS 217 (1886).<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn45\" href=\"#fnref45\">45.<\/a> <span class=\"Hyperlink\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/2L5APyhO\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Burrow-Giles Lithographic case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/2L5APyhO\" target=\"_blank\"><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000413470\" target=\"_blank\">1884 SCC OnLine US SC 113<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/2L5APyhO\" target=\"_blank\">: 28 L Ed 349 : 111 US 53, 55 (1884).<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn46\" href=\"#fnref46\">46.<\/a> Stephen Hawking, <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">A Brief History of Time<\/span> (Bantam Books, 1988).<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn47\" href=\"#fnref47\">47.<\/a> Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, &#8220;Le&oacute;n Declaration on European Neurotechnology: A Human Focused and Rights&#8217;-Oriented Approach&#8221;, (Leon, 24-10-2023).<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn48\" href=\"#fnref48\">48.<\/a> General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (gdpr.eu).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>by Aniruddha Panja*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":358174,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[44629,88083,88085,88081,88080,88084,8341,88082],"class_list":["post-358149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-ai","tag-ai-generated-creations","tag-copyright-act-1976","tag-copyright-laws","tag-dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws","tag-electroencephalography","tag-intellectual-property-rights","tag-technocentric-metaverse"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Dilemmas of Anthropocentric Copyright Laws in a Technocentric Metaverse: Navigating the IPR Issues of BCI Based AI Generated Creations | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"It is a well-established rule in the world of \u201cintellectual property rights\u201d that copyright cannot be provided for an \u201cidea\u201d\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dilemmas of Anthropocentric Copyright Laws in a Technocentric Metaverse: Navigating the IPR Issues of BCI Based AI Generated Creations\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"It is a well-established rule in the world of \u201cintellectual property rights\u201d that copyright cannot be provided for an \u201cidea\u201d\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-28T07:30:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-28T09:23:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/02-47335342.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Dilemmas of Anthropocentric Copyright Laws in a Technocentric Metaverse: Navigating the IPR Issues of BCI Based AI Generated Creations\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/\",\"name\":\"Dilemmas of Anthropocentric Copyright Laws in a Technocentric Metaverse: Navigating the IPR Issues of BCI Based AI Generated Creations | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/02-47335342.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-28T07:30:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-28T09:23:10+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"It is a well-established rule in the world of \u201cintellectual property rights\u201d that copyright cannot be provided for an \u201cidea\u201d\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/02-47335342.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/02-47335342.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Dilemmas of Anthropocentric Copyright Laws\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dilemmas of Anthropocentric Copyright Laws in a Technocentric Metaverse: Navigating the IPR Issues of BCI Based AI Generated Creations\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dilemmas of Anthropocentric Copyright Laws in a Technocentric Metaverse: Navigating the IPR Issues of BCI Based AI Generated Creations | SCC Times","description":"It is a well-established rule in the world of \u201cintellectual property rights\u201d that copyright cannot be provided for an \u201cidea\u201d","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dilemmas of Anthropocentric Copyright Laws in a Technocentric Metaverse: Navigating the IPR Issues of BCI Based AI Generated Creations","og_description":"It is a well-established rule in the world of \u201cintellectual property rights\u201d that copyright cannot be provided for an \u201cidea\u201d","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-08-28T07:30:51+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-28T09:23:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/02-47335342.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Dilemmas of Anthropocentric Copyright Laws in a Technocentric Metaverse: Navigating the IPR Issues of BCI Based AI Generated Creations","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/","name":"Dilemmas of Anthropocentric Copyright Laws in a Technocentric Metaverse: Navigating the IPR Issues of BCI Based AI Generated Creations | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/02-47335342.webp","datePublished":"2025-08-28T07:30:51+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-28T09:23:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"It is a well-established rule in the world of \u201cintellectual property rights\u201d that copyright cannot be provided for an \u201cidea\u201d","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/02-47335342.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/02-47335342.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Dilemmas of Anthropocentric Copyright Laws"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/dilemmas-of-anthropocentric-copyright-laws-in-a-technocentric-metaverse-navigating-the-ipr-issues-of-bci-based-ai-generated-creations\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dilemmas of Anthropocentric Copyright Laws in a Technocentric Metaverse: Navigating the IPR Issues of BCI Based AI Generated Creations"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/02-47335342.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":338138,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/30\/dispute-relating-infringement-of-copyright-is-arbitrable-orissa-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":358149,"position":0},"title":"Dispute relating to infringement of copyright against a particular person is arbitrable: Orissa High Court reiterates","author":"Editor","date":"December 30, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court relied on Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2019) 20 SCC 406., wherein it was held that a claim for infringement of copyright against a particular person is arbitrable, though in some manner the arbitrator would examine the right to copyright, a right in rem.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Orissa High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":293277,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/27\/5-high-courts-to-get-new-chief-justices\/","url_meta":{"origin":358149,"position":1},"title":"5 High Courts to get new Chief Justices","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"KERALA HIGH COURT \u21aa Shri Justice Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti, Judge, Kerala High Court, appointed as the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office. HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT \u21aa\u00a0Shri Justice Mamidanna Satya Ratna Sri Ramachandra Rao, Judge, Punjab & Haryana\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Appointments &amp; Transfers&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Appointments &amp; Transfers","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/appointments\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"new chief justices of high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/new-chief-justices-of-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/new-chief-justices-of-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/new-chief-justices-of-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/new-chief-justices-of-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":371160,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/bom-hc-shilpa-ai-generated-deepfake-content-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":358149,"position":2},"title":"Bombay High Court orders immediate takedown of AI-generated deepfake content infringing Shilpa Shetty Kudra&#8217;s privacy and dignity","author":"Ritu","date":"December 29, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA person\u2019s much less a woman\u2019s dignity cannot be publicly maligned or defamed that too without consent which is the sine qua non for such publications.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Shilpa Shetty AI-generated","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Shilpa-Shetty-AI-generated.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Shilpa-Shetty-AI-generated.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Shilpa-Shetty-AI-generated.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Shilpa-Shetty-AI-generated.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":286553,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/international-womens-day-2023-words-of-inspiration-learning-from-women-in-law-and-power\/","url_meta":{"origin":358149,"position":3},"title":"International Women\u2019s Day 2023 | Inspiring Quotes from Women in Law and Power","author":"Ridhi","date":"March 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"For the days you doubt yourself as a woman, another woman may become a torch bearer for you. On International Women\u2019s Day 2023, we bring some motivation through women who have made a mark in their fields for the upcoming generations. Gone are the days when men used to rule\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-80.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-80.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-80.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-80.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":294487,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/13\/why-one-should-buy-ebc-bare-acts-hear-from-legal-luminaries\/","url_meta":{"origin":358149,"position":4},"title":"Why one should buy EBC Bare Acts? Hear from Legal Luminaries","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\"Eastern Book Company has been a pioneer in the field of law publication and legal reporting. I thank EBC for presenting me with those valuable exhaustive bare acts today.\" Shri Kiren Rijiju, Former Law Minister of Law and Justice \u201cEBC brings the same stamp of quality to its bare acts\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-128.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-128.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-128.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-128.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":286628,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/4th-edition-of-courts-and-constitution-conference\/","url_meta":{"origin":358149,"position":5},"title":"4th Edition of Courts and Constitution Conference","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 9, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Write Up for the Post NALSAR University of Law is organizing the 4th edition of the Courts and the Constitution Conference in collaboration with the School for Policy and Governance, Azim Premji University, on 11-12 March, 2023, at the campus of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. About the Conference We\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Conference\/Seminars\/Lectures&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Conference\/Seminars\/Lectures","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/conference_seminars_lectures\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-675.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-675.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-675.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-675.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/358149","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=358149"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/358149\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/358174"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=358149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=358149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=358149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}