India’s effort to square generative artificial intelligence with existing copyright law has entered a more deliberate phase as the government seeks broader input on a contentious working paper outlining new regulatory options. The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade extended the public consultation window by 30 days to 6 February 2026 to allow stakeholders extra time to study proposals and submit feedback. According to media reports, the extension follows publication of the first part of the working paper in December 2025 and reflects the ministry’s intent to solicit a wide range of responses before advancing policy.

At the heart of the document is a bold proposal to authorise, by statute, a single compulsory licence allowing developers to use copyrighted works for AI training without individual consent, in exchange for government-determined remuneration collected and distributed centrally. Analysts summarising the working paper describe the architecture as “One Nation, One License, One Payment”, envisaging a non-profit, government‑designated collective to administer royalties and relieve developers of negotiating with myriad rights‑holders. The plan would treat reproduction, storage and adaptation performed during training as lawful when covered by this blanket regime.

Critics warn the mechanism as drafted risks unfairness and practical difficulties. Industry and creator groups have highlighted that a flat, statutory revenue‑share could shortchange many rightsholders, that registration with the central body would be obligatory to receive payments, and that compensation tied to developer revenue would leave creators uncompensated when models generate no measurable income despite using their works during training. International collecting societies urged caution, arguing in submissions that bolstering and expanding voluntary licensing frameworks is a preferable route to balance creator remuneration with continued AI innovation.

Legal commentators also flag potential tensions between the proposed compulsory framework and India’s international obligations and exceptions established elsewhere. Observers note that the paper rejects opt‑out and extended collective licensing approaches adopted in other jurisdictions and questions whether a mandatory, all‑encompassing licence sits comfortably with provisions such as those found in the Berne Convention and TRIPS. At the same time, the government has told parliament that an expert committee is reviewing whether the Copyright Act, 1957 adequately addresses questions arising from rapid generative AI adoption, underscoring the legal complexity policymakers face.

The decision to lengthen the consultation period has produced an immediate burst of submissions from affected parties. Collective management organisations and global creator networks have used the extra time to press for solutions that rely on existing licensing channels rather than a new statutory levy, while technology stakeholders have emphasised transparency around training datasets and sought clarity on how royalties would be calculated and distributed. The ministry’s extension was explicitly intended to give those stakeholders more time to prepare considered responses.

Moving forward, stakeholders and policymakers appear to be converging on the need for further, inclusive consultation to refine any intervention. Industry groups and rights organisations alike recommend approaches that are principle‑based, technologically neutral and flexible enough to coexist with voluntary licences and established collective management practices. The coming weeks of input, and the expert committee’s continuing work, will determine whether India adopts an unprecedented statutory regime or opts instead to strengthen existing licensing and exception mechanisms to address the challenges posed by generative AI.

Source Reference Map

Inspired by headline at: [1]

Sources by paragraph:

Source: Noah Wire Services