There is a strange irony brewing in our legal system. On the one hand, we are surrounded by machines that can write poems, design fashion lines, compose music, and even invent new toys that make kids giggle and on the other hand, we turn around and say, “Yeah, but they didn’t really create that”.
And why is that so?
Because, legally speaking, AI is not a natural or corporate person. And if it is not a legal person, it cannot hold Intellectual Property Rights.
But maybe, just maybe, it is time to question that assumption. Especially in a world where AI isn’t just helping us create, it is starting to create on its own.
The Toybox Just Got Smarter
Let us take two interesting scenarios!
In the first case if a Toy start-up in India comes up with a Toy which is has an Artificially Intelligent machine learning component and the component is configured to determine a single path for the user of the Toy then such a Toy could possibly be considered patentable after much debate to establish its novelty and inventiveness.
In another envisioned scenario a Toy start-up in India uses a generative AI model to develop characters for a new action figure line. No templates. No hand-drawn sketches, but just a few prompts and boom! Out comes a sleek superhero universe with backstories, color schemes, accessories, even catchphrases.
Let’s say the AI generates a character named ‘Zero’, a time-traveling, gravity-defying eco-warrior who teaches kids about sustainability. Zero becomes a hit. Now here’s the twist, no human wrote Zero’s story or designed his look, but AI did it from the scratch.
Under Indian law, there is a problem. Since the Copyright Act and Design Act recognize only human authorship, Zero may be an orphan, creatively brilliant, but legally parentless.
So who gets the rights?
- Is it the developer of the AI?
- The start-up using it?
- Or no one?
We have rules, but maybe we need exceptions when the rules cannot keep up with the revolution.
The Paintbrush Argument, it is Outdated!
One popular argument is that “AI is just a tool, just like a paintbrush”, but let us be real and embrace what is coming, because Midjourney is not a paintbrush, ChatGPT is not a pencil and DALL·E is not a pair of scissors.
If Michelangelo puts down his brush, it doesn’t go paint the Sistine Chapel on its own.
But an AI, it can generate an entire universe while you are still brewing your morning coffee.
Treating AI as a tool undermines its autonomous decision-making ability. It doesn’t merely execute instructions, but it interprets, infers, and creates and that is exactly what we expect from a creator, right?
If Corporations Can Own IP, why not an AI?
It is very important to take a step back and analyse. Corporations are legal fictions and they are not people, yet they can hold copyrights, patents, and trademarks. We gave them a legal person-hood because it made economic and social sense. Why can’t AI be a legal person?
So why can’t we extend limited IP person-hood to AI systems?
Not in a wild-west way where robots sue humans, but maybe in a structured model where AI is allowed to be listed as a co-creator or originator, and rights are assigned to the party responsible for its development or training.
Think of it as giving credit where credit is due, without threatening the human creator economy.
Why the Toy Industry Should Lead This Debate
The Toy industry is at a turning point. With AI entering everything from storytelling plush toys to interactive coding kits, the line between human-designed and machine-invented is blurring fast.
If we do not modernize our IP laws at the same pace, we would risk two major setbacks:
- Innovation will get bottle-necked as start-ups using AI will not have clear rights over what is created, making it hard for the start-ups to license, scale, or protect their products.
- IP ownership becomes murky and unmanageable. Toy makers relying on AI for design, functionality, or storytelling may find themselves in a legal limbo, unable to claim full rights, even if their creative input shaped the final product.
Shouldn’t the law reflect how toys are actually made today?
If a designer works with an AI to create a bestselling toy, dismissing their contribution because a machine was involved doesn’t just ignore reality, but it discourages progress.
The Future Isn’t Binary, It’s Blended
This is not about letting AI run wild. It is about acknowledging its role as a creative partner, especially when it contributes meaningfully and autonomously.
If we can have laws that protect traditional artisan-ship and folklore, surely we can evolve to recognize machine-originated creativity too. The future of toys will not be just about plastic and plush, but it will be algorithms and imaginations, and when that future arrives, maybe it is okay to let the human behind the machine sign the dotted line on behalf of the machine as well.
Closing Thought:
We gave AI the freedom to imagine, so now maybe it is time we give it the right to own what it creates, at least co-own with who gave it instructions or who prompted it.
At R K Dewan & Co., we are at the forefront of navigating the evolving intersection of AI and Intellectual Property Rights in India. Whether you’re a toy start-up leveraging AI for innovation or a tech company seeking clarity on IP ownership, our team of experienced IP professionals can help you protect, commercialize, and future-proof your AI-driven creations. Reach out to us today to ensure your innovations—human or machine-assisted—get the legal recognition they deserve.