An Indian government panel has recommended that artificial intelligence companies pay royalties to content creators for using their work to train models, proposing a centralised “one nation, one licence, one payment” framework that would mark a significant departure from the “fair use” approach favoured by many US-based firms. According to the original report, the panel said AI developers should be permitted to access Indian content for training but must contribute payments into a pooled fund managed by a body representing copyright holders. [1][2][5]
The proposal, published as a working paper by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, would create a mandatory blanket licence and a statutory remuneration right for creators, with royalty rates to be fixed by a government-appointed committee or by courts. The paper argues that a centralised collection mechanism would reduce transaction costs, prevent creators from having to track their works across vast datasets, and ensure smaller creators receive compensation. [4][5][7]
That approach contrasts with current practice in the United States, where many AI companies assert that training on publicly available material falls under “fair use” and therefore should not attract fees. The panel explicitly rejected an opt-out model , used to varying degrees in jurisdictions such as the EU , as impractical, saying it would unfairly burden creators to monitor and exclude their works from datasets. According to reporting, the panel instead favours mandatory inclusion with centralised compensation. [1][2][3]
Industry groups representing major technology firms reacted strongly. Nasscom described the mandatory fee as effectively a “tax or levy on innovation,” and the Motion Picture Association urged retaining licensing arrangements without changing copyright law. The business community has also warned the proposal could raise costs for startups and slow research and deployment of AI services. The report is open for 30 days of public and industry comment before the government reviews the recommendations. [1][2][4]
Proponents of the plan say it reflects India’s push to assert control over data rights and to ensure creators in the country are remunerated when their work underpins commercially valuable models. The proposed single-payer system is presented as designed to simplify licensing for developers while addressing perceived inequities in how benefits from AI are distributed. Government sources framing the working paper emphasise balancing innovation with fair compensation. [5][7]
Legal disputes already highlight the tensions the panel seeks to address. OpenAI faces at least one lawsuit alleging unauthorised use of copyrighted material; the company denies wrongdoing and insists its practices comply with fair use. The panel’s proposals would put these disputes into a statutory framework by creating an explicit route for creators to claim payment rather than pursue individual litigation. [1][2]
Internationally, responses and regulatory models vary: Japan has enacted broad exemptions permitting training on copyrighted works, while the European Union has adopted measures allowing creators to opt out in certain contexts. The Indian proposal sits between these models but leans toward compulsory collective remuneration rather than opt-out or blanket exemption. Observers say the outcome of India’s consultation could influence global discussions about how to reconcile AI development with copyright protection. [2][1]
If implemented, the framework would require firms such as OpenAI and Google to account for payments tied to the use of Indian content, potentially setting a precedent for other countries seeking to monetise training data. Industry opposition, questions about enforcement, and the mechanics of setting and distributing rates are likely to dominate the consultation period and any subsequent legislative drafting. [4][1]
📌 Reference Map:
##Reference Map:
- [1] (NDTV Profit / Reuters summary) - Paragraph 1, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 8
- [2] (Reuters) - Paragraph 1, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7
- [3] (Times of India) - Paragraph 3
- [4] (Business Standard) - Paragraph 2, Paragraph 8
- [5] (Indian Express) - Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 5
- [6] (Times of India - business) - Paragraph 2
- [7] (Financial Express) - Paragraph 2, Paragraph 5
Source: Noah Wire Services