TC 05_P

1ST VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

WRIT PETITION NO. _______/2024

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF INDIANA

IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE MATTER

AND

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

AI Artify Co. & Ors …………………. APPELLANT

VS
Mr. Shridhar Trivedi …………………. RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

INDEX

S. NO TABEL OF CONTENT [Link]

I LIST OF ABBREVATION 3-4

II INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5-6

III
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7

IV
STATEMENT OF FACTS 8-9

V ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER HON’BLE COURT OF INDIANA HAS

JURISDICTION FOR THE PRESENT CASE?

2. WHETHER AI ARTIFY HAS INFRINGED RIGHT OF 10

THE RESPONDENT?

3. WHETHER APPELLANT HAS VIOLATED MORAL

RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT?

VI SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 11

VII
ARGUMENT ADVANCED 12 - 23

1 WHETHER HON’BLE COURT OF INDIANA HAS 12 - 17

JURISDICTION FOR THE PRESENT CASE?

2 WHETHER AI ARTIFY HAS INFRINGED RIGHT OF THE 17 - 19

RESPONDENT?

1
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

3 WHETHER APPELLANT HAS VIOLATED MORAL 19 - 23

RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT?

VIII PRAYERS 24

2
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

LIST OF ABBREVATION

ABBREVATION EXPANSION

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

AI ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

MR. MISTER

IPR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT

TRIPS TRADE RELATED ASPECT OF INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY RIGHTS

SEC. SECTION

USA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V. VERSUES

ITA INCOME TAC ACT

U/S UNDER SECTION

W. P WRITE PETITION

F. A FIRST APPEAL

ROI UNION OF INDIANA

CO COMPANY

LTD LIMITED

3
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SCC SUPREME COUT CASE

& AND

NO. NUMBER

P. PAGE

PARA PARAGRAPH

PROP PROPOSITON

BIS BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS.

4
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S. NO NAME OF THE CASE [Link]

1. NICHOLS V UNIVERSAL PICTURES CORP 11

2. RG ANAND V DELUX FILMS, 1978 11

3. GUJARAT BOTTLING CO LTD. V. COCA COLA 14

COMPANY AND ORS
4. RAJ REWAL V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., 16

5. THE ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION VS. SMT. -

B. MALINI MALLYA, 2008
6. THE HUMANS OF BOMBAY STORIES PVT. LTD. V. 16
PEOPLE OF INDIA
7. C. CUNNIAH AND CO. V. BALRAJ AND CO., AIR 1961 -

8. N. T. RAGHUNATHAN V. ALL INDIA REPORTER -

LTD., BOMBAY, AIR 1971

STATUTES / LEGISLATION/ CONVENTION REFERRED

1. THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
2. INCOME TAXT ACT, 1957
3. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
4. BERNE CONVENTION OF 1886
5. EURPOEAN UNION COPYRIGHT DIRECTIVE
6. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

ONLINE SITES
➢ [Link]
➢ [Link]
➢ [Link]
94ef6d25036d
➢ [Link]
3a4d768f6826
5
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

➢ [Link]
work#:~:text=The%20unauthorized%20or%20prohibited%20use%20of%20works%20u
nder,similarity%E2%80%9D%20between%20the%20original%20and%20allegedly%20
infringing%20work.
➢ [Link]
in-copyright-
[Link]#:~:text=The%20Copyright%20Act%20of%201957%3A%20Under%
20Section%2051,expression%20of%20an%20idea%20amounts%20to%20copyright%20
infringement.
➢ [Link]
expressions-are-analysis/
➢ [Link]
generated-artwork-cant-be-protected-by-copyright-ruled-us-court-
judge/articleshow/[Link]?from=mdr
➢ [Link]
property-indian-copyright-act-singhania-co-llp-238401
➢ [Link]
artists\
➢ [Link]
ai-be-a-creator-

6
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant herein have approached the Supreme Court of Indiana through:

1. Appellant in W.P No.__ of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the constitution of
Indiana

2. Appellant filed W.P. No.__ of 2021: Writ Petition under Appellate Jurisdiction of Hon’ble
Court

HENCE THIS APPEAL PETITION BEFORE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIANA.

The Memorandum set forth the facts, laws and the corresponding arguments on which the
claims are based in the present case. The Appellant affirms that they shall accept any
Judgement of this Hon’ble Court as final binding upon itself and shall execute it in its eternity
and in good faith, For the sake of brevity, the material of the facts is placed herewith in the
chronological order

7
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Republic of Indiana act as a cradle of artistic brilliance harbouring multitude of gifted
Creators with diverse talents such as painting, poetry and various form of artistic expression.
Mr. Shridhar Trivedi, Petitioner in the present case is a renowned artist having unique style of
painting. He is renowned for his distinctive style characterised by bold stroke and vivid hues
that infuse vitality into his canvases. Inherited legacy of his great-grandfather.

A group of entrepreneurs from the country United Salvana established an enterprise named
‘AI Artify’ under Mr. Gary Gustavo as a CEO on 02 February 2020 in art industry. Although
technically a Salvanian enterprise originating from Morolado. AI Artify with objective to
develop software capable of generating high quality artwork, uses the existing repository of
published artwork, including masterpieces and artworks from artist worldwide. The company
unveiled a fully refined version of its service to the public on 14th July 2021. The software
worked on Subscription model whereby the user was required to pay subscription fee to avail
its services. The service includes generating artwork ‘inspired’ and ‘similar’ creating printable
versions in desired dimension to facilitate print on various article such as coffee mug, slipper,
t-shirt, etc

Petitioner wrote an article on his blog expressing his opinion about ‘AI Artify’ and its use. He
showed his concern over the right of artist and infringement of their rights, including his own.
The Article written by petitioner raised a debate on the infringement of his right due to use of
AI specifically with respect to ‘AI Artify’. AI Artify has given statement that the design
generated is inspired and not deliberate act of infringement but rather result of AI Algorithm.

Petitioner decided to take legal action against the enterprise by filing a lawsuit in the Delhi
High Court against AI Artify, alleging infringement of his right also cited example of artwork
closely resembling his found of pair of slippers, generated by AI Artify.

Petitioner argued due to AI generated artwork resembling his own had led to a significant
decline in demand for his original piece, resulting in substantial money loss. On other hand,
the Appellant argued that the lawsuit is not maintainable has the hon’ble court of Delhi High
Court do not have jurisdiction. Further, AI output is not exact reproduction of the work but an
interpretation influenced.

8
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

The Delhi High Court rendered its judgement in favour of Mr, Trivedi affirming copyright
infringement. Dissatisfied by judgement AI Artify approached Hon’ble Supreme court of
Indiana, seeking review of the decision.

9
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER HON’BLE COURT OF INDIANA HAS JURISDICTION FOR THE

PRESENT CASE?

2. WHETHER AI ARTIFY HAS INFRINGED RIGHT OF THE RESPONDENT?

3. WHETHER APPELLANT HAS VIOLATED MORAL RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT?

10
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ISSUE 1: WHETHER HON’BLE COURT OF INDIANA HAS JURISDICTION FOR

THE PRESENT CASE?

It is the humble submission of the appellant that the court of Indiana does not have jurisdiction
over the present case. The alleged copyright infringement did not happen in the territory of
India, the appellant contends that the cause of action did not arise in Indiana, as the alleged
images circulated online do not constitute a cause of action within Indiana's jurisdiction, as
per relevant Supreme Court judgments. Lastly, the appellant asserts that the respondent
violated due process by directly approaching the High Court instead of the district court, as
mandated by Section 62(1) of the Copyright Act.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER AI ARTIFY HAS INFRINGED RIGHT OF THE

RESPONDENT?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble apex court of Indiana that in the present case the
appellant is innocent and no act of infringement is being committed by him. The artistic style
of the respondent does not merit copyright protection as it constitutes an idea rather than an
expression of an idea, AI-generated artwork, inspired by publicly available works, does not
constitute infringement, especially as AI is not a legal entity capable of infringement under
copyright law. Lastly, the pure intention of AI Artify to transform the art industry, aiming to
infuse new life into existing artistic styles rather than replicate them, thus denying any
intentional infringement.

ISSUE 1: WHETHER APPELLANT HAS VIOLATED MORAL RIGHTS OF

RESPONDENT?

It is the humble submission of the appellant that there is an absence of moral rights
infringement in the actions attributed to our AI software. The generated artwork is a byproduct
of user inputs, devoid of intent to associate with the author's work or to cause harm to their
reputation. Therefore, we urge the court to dismiss any claims of moral rights violation against
AI Artify

11
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION FOR

THE PRESENT CASE OR NOT?

➢ It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that we are a Salvanian enterprise named
‘AI Artify’ which has its headquarters at Morolado, United Salvana which does not come
within the jurisdiction of the courts of Indiana. It can be argued in the three-fold – (i)
firstly, Indiana court’s jurisdiction over companies established outside Indiana with
respect to present case, (ii) secondly, significance given to cause of action in determining
jurisdiction, (iii) thirdly, the interpretation of section 62(2) of Copyright Act. Thus, it is
submitted that the Hon’ble court lacks jurisdiction in the present case.

[1.A] INDIANA COURT’S JURISDICTION OVER COMPANIES ESTABLISHED

OUTSIDE INDIANA WITH RESPECT TO PRESENT CASE:

➢ It is humbly submitted before the court that the Copyright Act, 1957 typically spell out
their scope in Section 1(2), and the Copyright Act reads as thus: "It extends to the whole
of India." This means that a right granted in India can be infringed only in India.
➢ In light of this section, I would like to bring to your notice that the alleged copyright
infringement occurred through the use of alleged ai software called AI Artify, which is a
software capable of generating high-quality artwork.
➢ AI Artify is widely used by people across the world for generating artworks, so it is safe
to conclude that the software is accessible globally. The alleged AI-generated artworks
which the defendant claims have infringed upon his copyright were not specifically
targeted at the Republic of Indiana or the respondent (Mr. Shridhar Trivedi). Since AI
Artify is a globally accessible software therefore, it will be incorrect to allege that the
cause of action arises in Indiana.
➢ The effects of the alleged infringement should be considered on a global scale rather than
limited to a specific jurisdiction. Since the cause of action occurred globally and not
particularly in India, it is incorrect to assert that the copyright of the respondent was
infringed in India. If the copyright was not infringed in India therefore, the respondent
under section 1(2) of the said act does not have the right to sue the appellant for copyright

12
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

infringement. Therefore, on the ground that the infringement did not happen in the
territory of Indiana the courts of Indiana does not have jurisdiction in the present case

[1.B] SIGNIFICANCE GIVEN TO CAUSE OF ACTION IN DETERMINING

JURISDICTION:

➢ It is humbly submitted before the court that Section 62(2) confers the power to institute a
suit only in the rights holder's place of residence or business, provided that there is a cause
of action which has arisen in India. Section62(2) of the said act particularly highlights the
point that copyright infringement suit can be filed in the holder's place of residence or
business, provided that there is a cause of action which has arisen in India.
➢ In the present case the respondent has alleged that the appellant has infringed upon him
copyright on the mere basis that he had seen the generated images being circulated online
which the defendant claims resembling his style of paintings
➢ Online platform is a medium which is not restricted to a particular country or territory, it
is a medium which is accessible to all.
➢ On the basis of the alleged images that were circulated online it cannot be said that the
cause of action arised in Indiana in the light of the below cited SC judgement.
➢ The Supreme Court in Dhodha House & Patel Field Marshal Industries v. S.K. Maingi &
P.M. Diesel Ltd., 2006 (9) SCC 41 has, inter alia, observed:"[Link] a cause of action for
filing the suit would not arise within the jurisdiction of the court only because an
advertisement has been issued in the trademark journal or any other journal notifying the
factum of filing of such an application".1
➢ The said decision was followed in Pfizer Products v. Rajesh Chopra (supra). 2In this
decision, the Court held that the publication of the advertisement in the trademark journal
would not confer jurisdiction upon a court within whose territorial limits the advertisement
is published or is seen. The mere allegation that the defendants mark had been advertised
in the trademark journal which was circulated in Delhi, would not constitute a part of
cause of action.
➢ Since, the power to institute a suit only in the rights holder's place of residence or business
is only available if there is a cause of action which has arisen in India, in the present case

1
Dhodha House & Patel Field Marshal Industries v. S.K. Maingi & P.M. Diesel Ltd., 2006 (9) SCC 41 (India)
2
Pfizer Products v. Rajesh Chopra (supra), 2007(2) (DEL)
13
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

the holder’s place of residence or business is Indiana, the Cause of action did not arise in
Indian. Therefore, the courts of Indiana do not have jurisdiction in the present matter.

[1.C] THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 62 OF COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957:

➢ It is humbly submitted before the court that Section 62(1) of the said act clearly highlights
the points that “copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right conferred by
this Act shall be instituted in the district court having jurisdiction”3 Whereas in the present
case the respondent instead of approaching the district court, the respondent directly
approached the high court which is clear violation of section 62(1) of The Indian
Copyright Act, 1957.

In Conclusion, therefore, the present case is not maintainable in the court of law as the due
process of law was not practised by the respondent. therefore, the suit is not maintainable
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court in Delhi.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER AI ARTIFY HAS INFRINGED RIGHTS OF THE

RESPONDENT?

➢ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble apex court of Indiana that in the present case
the appellant is innocent and no act of infringement is being committed by him. The
counsel for the Appellant would argue this on basis of three-fold- (i) Is the artistic style of
respondent eligible for copyright protection? (ii) Could output generated by AI system be
deemed as infringing upon copyright? (iii) Intention of the appellant

[2.A] IS ARTISTIC STYLE OF THE RESPONDENT ELIGIBLE FOR COPYRIGHT

PROTECTION

➢ The counsel of the Appellant would bring to the notice of fact before hon’ble supreme
court that the description given in the moot proposition in Paragraph 2 states that
renowned for his distinctive style characterised by bold strokes and vivid hues that infuse
vitality into his canvases, Mr Trivedi possesses a remarkable ability to transmute

3
Copyright act, 1957, sec. 62 (India)

14
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

unconventional colour schemes into masterpieces that defy conventional norms.4 The
description given is not about the specific artwork nor it talks about the artistic work itself
rather it talks about the artistic style of the respondent.
➢ The counsel would also like to mention that the style was not developed by himself rather
it was passed down to him from ancestral lineage such as his great- grandfather. This
shows that the development of the style was not his creation but it was inheretary.
➢ The Apex court is well aware about the principle of Doctrine of Idea of IPR. The doctrine
of Idea states that the idea itself cannot be copyrighted but the expression of idea can. This
principle is considered has basic identification for understanding in ensuring that the flow
of idea is not limited yet protected.
➢ It is humbly highlighted by the respondent that there exists a difference between the
expression of idea and the idea itself. Idea is when expressed it is considered is protectable
therefore, the finished product i.e. film, artistic work, song, etc is considered as copyright.
However, the idea of creating film or the idea of music cannot be considered as copyright.
Similarly, the artistic work created by the respondent can be considered for copyright. But
not the art style of the respondent. As the art style is an ‘idea’ itself rather than ‘expression’
of idea. To elaborate more the counsel would highlight the word given in the sentence
mention above. Words such as ‘bold stroke’, ‘vivid hue’, ‘unconventional colour scheme’
are not his creation. Therefore, contention of respondent that the infringement is done by
the appellant is incorrect.
➢ Furthermore, they distinguished between idea and expression as claiming copyright over
ideas will give undue advantage to the copyright holder (or monopoly in this case) which
will further destabilize the flow of the market as few people will have the whole control.
Over time this distinction has expanded to cover other things as well (Article 9 (2) of
TRIPS5– apart from ideas, it talks about procedures, method of operation, mathematical
concepts).
➢ It is submitted before the hon’ble supreme court that section as per Section 13 of the Indian
Copyright Act, copyright subsists, inter alia, in ‘original’ literary, dramatic, artistic,
musical works as well as cinematographic films and sound recordings. The plaintiff in any
copyright infringement suit must first establish that his work is original if it is literary,
dramatic, artistic or musical in nature. However, originality itself has not been defined

4
Paragraph 2 of Moot Prop
5
Trade Related aspects of Intellectual property rights, 1994, Article 9(2)
15
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

anywhere in the Copyright Act. Given the hon’ble court to decide the definition of
originality to interpretate. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner initiating
the initial suit.
➢ In Nichols v Universal Pictures Corp, the US court used the abstraction test6. This test
basically says that if the two works are similar, then that does not mean that it is copyright
infringement. For copyright infringement, the works should be more than just the ideas
and substantial parts of the two works should be similar. The point here is to draw the line
where these similarities amount to copyright infringement. Using this test the judges
compared the plot, screenplay and the characters of both the work and they were not the
same. So, there was no copyright infringement.
➢ In another important case of RG Anand v Delux films, 1978, hon’ble supreme court of
Indiana laid down certain three major proposition regarding idea and expression of idea,
which are relevant to the present case.
I. Firstly, ideas, themes, historical facts and subject matter cannot be copyrighted but the
ways/ expressions in which those ideas are manifested can claim copyright.
II. Secondly, if the idea is the same then the court will have to determine these similarities.
They will have to check whether the similarity between the works is substantial or not and
whether a reasonable or a prudent man (substantial similarity test) would find those works
similar or not (average viewers’ test).
III. Lastly, if only ideas are the same and the expression is totally different then there is no
question of infringement7
➢ The counsel of the Appellant would like to bring notice of the court to last proposition
given by the court. In the present case, the expression of idea generated artistic work of
the AI and the artistic work of respondent is different. The appellant can state this on basis
of the fact that the image generated by AI can be easily identified as the artistic style is
similar not the work the or to be specific the work of artist and the work of AI is similar.
➢ The other argument, counsel would like to submit before the apex court is that the
generated work is inspired work not the copy of the original work. When the generated
work lacks differentiation, it may be deemed as infringing upon copyright. Consequently,

6
Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).
7
RG Anand vs M/s. Delux Film & Ors, 1978, 4 SCC 118
16
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

inspired works cannot be considered as infringements, safeguarding the artist's work from
being merely derivative and within the scope of protection.

[2.B] COULD OUTPUT GENERATED BY AI SYSTEM BE DEEMED AS

INFRINGING UPON COPYRIGHT

➢ The counsel of appellant would like to highlight the importance of the fact that in the
present case the respondent is a renowned person in the art industry having an art style
admired throughout the world. Therefore, the work of the respondent is publicly available
and the appellant has used the work which are already publicly available to not circulate
those but to use them to train the software.
➢ It is argued before the hon’ble apex court that the relevant section for exception to
infringement is Section 51 of the copyright act, 1957. Section 51 of the act reads as:
Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed—
(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the
Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence
so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act— 8
The counsel for appellant would like to emphasise on the word ‘any person’, the meaning
of person is not given in the copyright act, 1957. However, the definition of ‘person’ is
given under section 2(31) of Income tax 1961
As per Section 2(31) of Income Tax Act, 1961, unless the context otherwise requires, the
term “person” includes:
(i) an individual,
(ii) a Hindu undivided family,
(iii) a company,
(iv) a firm,
(v) an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not,
(vi) a local authority, and
(vii) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses.9
➢ The counsel of Appellant has mention section 2(31) just to make court understand what is
definition of person given in various laws. Not only this but the ‘person’ when referred
related to copyright is considered to be as mention in above section

8
Copyright Act, 1957, Sec. 51 (India)
9
Income Tax, 1961, sec. 2(31) (India)
17
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

➢ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that as Artificial Intelligence is a software
and it cannot be considered to be within the definition of ‘any person’ stated in section 51
of the copyright act. Therefore, to conclude that infringement has taken place is incorrect.
As copyright shall only be deemed to be infringed when any person commits the act of
infringement given in Section 52(a) of (i) and (ii) or of (b)(i)(ii)(iii). Ai cannot be
considered as Legal entity.
➢ The counsel would like to clear the fact that the training of AI was done in such a way that
the software will get inspired by the work rather than direction reproduction of the work
➢ The counsel would like to highlight that the functioning of the software is done in such a
way that the image generated is on basis of the design the end user has asked. Therefore,
the output is on the basis of the input given by the user. Here, the company cannot be held
liable as the company’s intention was not to infringed the right of the owners of the
copyright but by expanding the artwork style.
➢ Therefore, it is humbly submitted before hon’ble court that as AI is not a legal entity and
not within the ambit of section 51 of copyright, it cannot be deemed to be infringed unless
it is committed a person. And as AI is not a legal entity it cannot be considered to be
infringement.

[2.C] DOCTRINE OF FAIR USE

➢ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble apex court that AI Artify was started with the
intention to transform art industry. Therefore, Appellant launched it AI software.
Appellant trained its software in such a way that it will understand the work of renowned
artist and generated images which will be inspired by the work of renowned artist and
creating work which will be expressed in new life. Therefore, the work of respondent was
use as for training should be consider as under fair use even in unintentional similarities
arises.
➢ In case of RG Anand v Delux films, 1978, hon’ble supreme court of Indiana laid down
that the fundamental fact which has to be determined where a charge of violation of the
copyright is made by the plaintiff against the defendant is to determine whether or not the
defendant not only adopted the idea of the copyrighted work but has also adopted the
manner, arrangement, situation to situation, scene to scene with minor charges or super
additions or embellishment here and there. Indeed, if on a perusal of the copyrighted work
the defendant's work appears to be a transparent rephrasing or a copy of a substantial and

18
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

material part of the original, the charge of plagiarism must stand proved. Care however
must be taken to see whether the defendant has merely disguised piracy or has actually
reproduced the original in a different form, different tone, different tenor so as to infuse a
new life into the idea of the copyrighted work adapted by him. In the latter case there is
no violation of the copyright.10
➢ In Gujarat Bottling Co Ltd. V. Coca Cola Company and Ors11., The Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed that the primary purpose of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the
plaintiff against damage by a violation of his right. He could not be adequately
compensated and damages recoverable in the action if the ambiguity were resolved in his
favour at the trial. However, the need for such protection must be measured against the
relevant need to protect the defendant from injury, which may prevent him from exercising
his legal rights for which he may not be sufficiently compensated. The court must balance
one demand against another and decide “where the balance of convenience lies”.
➢ Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble apex court that the act of appellant
was within the ambit of fair use and the contention of respondent of that appellant has
infringed right of respondent is incorrect

In Conclusion, That the act of artist was of fair use, the artistic style of respondent is not
eligible for copyright as it is an idea itself rather than expression of idea and as AI lack the
ability of being a legal entity it cannot be consider as person and infringement can only be
done by person. Therefore, AI Artify has not infringed upon rights of respondent

ISSUE 3: WHETHER APPELLANT HAS VIOLATED MORAL RIGHTS OF

RESPONDENT?

➢ The counsel would like to emphasise on the facts of the case in front of the hon’ble
supreme court of Indiana that the respondent of the present case is renowned and
celebrated artist and his style of painting is considered as unique which has been pass
down to him from generations.

10
RG Anand vs M/s. Delux Film & Ors, 1978, 4 SCC 118
11
Gujarat Bottling Co Ltd. V. Coca Cola Company and Ors , 1995 SCC (5) 545
19
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

➢ The counsel for respondent would like to briefly highlight the scope of moral right. The
first and foremost right which comes to one's mind is the "Paternity Right" in the work,
i.e. the right to have his name on the work. It may also be called the "identification right'
or 'attribution right’. – The second right which one thinks of is the right to disseminate his
work i.e. the 'divulgation or dissemination right'. It would embrace the economic right to
sell the work or valuable consideration. – Linked to the paternity right, a third right, being
the right to maintain purity in the work can be thought of. There can be no purity without
integrity. It may be a matter of opinion, but certainly, treatment of a work which is
derogatory to the reputation of the author, or in some way degrades the work as conceived
by the author can be objected to by the author. This would be the moral right of "integrity".
➢ The relevant section dealing with moral right under copyright act, 1957 is section 57 of
the act. Which reads as:
Author’s special rights. —
1[(1) Independently of the author’s copyright and even after the assignment either wholly
or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right—
(a) to claim authorship of the work; and
(b) to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or
other act in relation to the said work 2[***] if such distortion, mutilation, modification or
other act would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation: Provided that the author shall
not have any right to restrain or claim damages in respect of any adaptation of a computer
programme to which clause (aa) of sub-section (1) of section 52 applies.
Explanation. — Failure to display a work or to display it to the satisfaction of the author
shall not be deemed to be an infringement of the rights conferred by this section.]
(2) The right conferred upon an author of a work by sub-section (1), 3[***], may be
exercised by the legal representatives of the author.12
➢ It is humbly submitted before that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, recently in the case of
Raj Rewal v. Union of India & Ors.13, defined the scope of 'Moral Rights' under Section
57 of The Copyright Act of India
➢ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble apex court of Indiana that in the present case
the appellant is innocent and no act of infringement is being committed by him. The
counsel for the Appellant would argue this on basis of three-fold- (i) Whether Appellant

12
Copyright act, 1957, sec. 57 (India)
13
Raj Rewal V. UOI & Ors., - 2017 SCC Online Del 7977: (2017) 240
20
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

has violated Moral right of attribution? (ii) Whether Appellant has violated Moral right of
integrity? (iii) can work generated by ai be considered has moral right violation?

[3.A] WHETHER APELLANT HAS VIOLATED MORAL RIGHT OF ATTRIBUTION

➢ It is argued that Article 6bis14 requires that the author of a work be given at least two types
of moral rights. The first is commonly known as the "right of attribution." Also mention
under section 57 (1)(a), It encompasses not only the right of an author to have her name
associated with her independent work but also to claim authorship when someone not give
her right of authorship and use his/her work has his own.
However, the apex court should not that the Appellant has never claimed the authorship
of the work of the respondent, as we are not associating our name with the work of the
respondent. We have used this work to train our AI which is done privately and accepted
the fact that this work belongs to the artist themselves nor we are associating the work
generated by our AI as the work of author i.e. respondent. Hence, the right of author under
section 57(1)(a) has not violated and the right of attribution of the respondent stand still.
Hence there is no case of either associating ourselves with authors work or associating
author with our work. Therefore, there is no violation of the "right of attribution" as
required by Article 6bis as well.

[3.B] WHETHER APELLANT HAS VIOLATED MORAL RIGHT OF INTEGRITY

➢ Another important moral right which is hold by the author is right of integrity given under
section 57(1)(b), which safe guards safeguards the honour and reputation of the author,
necessitates a clear understanding of what constitutes harm to such honour or reputation.
➢ It's imperative to note by the hon’ble supreme court that our actions have not tarnished the
author's reputation or honour. Our AI software operates autonomously, generating artwork
based solely on user inputs. The AI's outputs are unintentional consequences of the
training data and the input provided by the user functioning on basis of algorithm. Thus,
there is no violation of the author's honour or reputation. There is no intention to mimic
the author's work or to cause any detriment to their reputation. Therefore, the fundamental
premise of moral rights violation is unsubstantiated.
➢ The appellant counsel would bring the important fact of the case that AI Artify is an
enterprise with main objective of generating artwork which is inspired by the work of

14
Berne Convention, 1886, Article 6 bis
21
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

famous and renowned artist. The functioning of AI software is such a way that when the
user avails subscription is given an option of generating the artistic images in such a way
that the AI will generate on demand of user of the specific dimension needed, creating
printable version of generated image of desired dimension. The relevant paragraph of the
proposition is para third, last line, stating the services included generating artwork and
creating printable versions in desired dimensions to facilitate print on various articles
such as coffee mugs, t-shirts, slippers, etc. 15
As Appellant do not provide the direct product such as coffee mugs, t-shirts, slippers, etc.
but we provide the desired generated images with dimension needed. Therefore, the
appellant cannot be blame for violation of the right to integrity of the respondent.

[3.C] CAN WORK GENERATED BY AI BE CONSIDERED HAS MORAL RIGHT

VIOLATION

➢ It is humbly argument before the supreme court of Indiana that work generated by AI
cannot be considered as violation of moral right
➢ Furthermore, is submitted that, under Article 5 of the EU Copyright Directive16, member
states are authorised to create exceptions to the rights of reproduction and communication
of works, section 3(i) including incidental inclusion of a work in other material. In our
case, the AI-generated artwork is not a reproduction of Mr. Trivedi's original work, but
rather a new creation resulting from user inputs. Therefore, there is no violation of the
right of reproduction or communication.
➢ Additionally, the lack of intent is a pivotal factor in determining culpability in moral rights
violations. Our AI software operates devoid of intent to replicate the author's work or to
harm their reputation. The generated artwork is a result of the input provided by users,
absolving our software from any deliberate wrongdoing.
➢ It is crucial to recognize that our AI software, AI Artify, cannot be considered a legal entity
engaging in reproduction of original works. The generated artwork is a product of user
inputs, not a direct reproduction of the author's work. Moreover, any subsequent use of
the artwork, such as printing on slippers, is beyond our control and not a primary function
of our software. The generated artwork is a result of user inputs, and the primary focus of

15
3rd Para. of Moot Prop
16
European Union Copyright Directive, Article 5

22
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

our software is to develop high-quality artwork rather than facilitate printing or material
selection.

In conclusion, the arguments presented demonstrate the absence of moral rights infringement
in the actions attributed to our AI software. The generated artwork is a byproduct of user
inputs, devoid of intent to associate with the author's work or to cause harm to their
reputation. Therefore, we urge the court to dismiss any claims of moral rights violation
against AI Artify.

23
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 1st VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Where in light of issues raised, argument advanced, and authorities cited, it is prayed that
this Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to hold that:

1. The Appellant of the present is case, is not within jurisdiction of court and the judgement
of Hon’ble Delhi High court is incorrect.

2. AI Artify has not infringed upon right of the respondent of the present case.

3. Appellant has not violated right of the respondent

And pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the best interest of
Justice, fairness, Equality and Good Conscience.

For this Act of kindness, the Appellant shall forever pray.

S/d.
(Counsel for the petitioner)

24
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT