HomeTables ·Jurisdiction × Topic matrix ·Live · sourced from verified claims
Frameworks · Per-jurisdiction note · IP & AI

India: IP & AI

All six IP & AI claims for this jurisdiction, with the original source for each completed cell. Editor: David Longford.

← Back to IP & AI matrix
Copyright · Claim 1

AI-Only Works · Copyrightability

Are works generated solely by AI (no human creative contribution) eligible for copyright protection in this jurisdiction?
No Source-confirmed
Source citation: Copyright Act 1957 s.2(d)
Copyright Act 1957 s.2(d) lists author/composer/artist/photographer/producer (all human roles) at p.5.
Verification: Raw PDF read of indiacode.nic.in/.../a1957-14.pdf, p.5; s.2(d) lists author/composer/artist/photographer/producer (human roles) verbatim
Copyright · Claim 2

AI-Only Works · Authorship

When a work is generated solely by AI, does the law name a human or legal person as the author — and if so, who?
No Source-confirmed
Source citation: Copyright Act 1957 s.2(d)
Copyright Act 1957 s.2(d) lists author/composer/artist/photographer/producer (all human roles) at p.5 — same provision as Claim 1.
Verification: indiacode.nic.in/.../a1957-14.pdf, p.5; s.2(d) lists human roles only
Training Data · Claim 3

Non-Commercial TDM · Research

Can researchers perform text-and-data mining on copyrighted works without a licence for scientific or non-commercial purposes?
Limited Source-confirmed
Source citation: Copyright Act 1957 s.52(1)(a)
Copyright Act 1957 s.52(1)(a): "a fair dealing with any work, not being a computer programme, for the purpose of—(i) private or personal use, including research; (ii) criticism or review...; (iii) the reporting of current events and current affairs."
Verification: Raw PDF p.33 verbatim: '(a) a fair dealing with any work, not being a computer programme, for the purpose of—(i) private or personal use, including research'
Training Data · Claim 4

Commercial TDM · AI Training

Can commercial actors (including AI developers) train models on copyrighted works without a licence, subject to opt-out or any other limit?
No Source-confirmed (negative)
Source citation: (no commercial TDM — s.52(1)(a) limited to private/personal/research)
Confirmed by s.52(1)(a)'s limit to "private or personal use, including research"; no commercial TDM exception elsewhere in the Act.
Verification: Confirmed by s.52(1)(a) language 'private or personal use, including research'; no commercial TDM exception elsewhere in Act
Patents · Claim 5

AI as Inventor

Can an AI system be designated as the inventor on a patent application in this jurisdiction?
Untested Editorial
Source citation: Patents Act 1970 s.6 ("true and first inventor")
Patents Act 1970 s.6 references the "true and first inventor"; no reported AI-inventor case in India.
Verification: Statute requires true-and-first inventor; no reported AI-inventor case in India
Patents · Claim 6

AI-Assisted Inventorship

When an AI system contributes materially to an invention, does the law require a human inventor and how is contribution-by-AI treated?
No framework Editorial
Source citation: (no statutory or case guidance)
No India framework on AI-assisted inventorship.
Verification: No India framework on AI-as-tool inventorship
How each reference table is built Four-stage process · every statement is hash-pinned to source and reviewed by a human editor before publication.
Stage 1 · Machine
Source archival
Primary regulator texts are fetched directly from official portals and hash-pinned.
Stage 2 · AI
Dual-judge verification
Two independent AI systems must both locate the exact supporting text in the source.
Stage 3 · Machine
Reconciliation
Disagreements between the two judges are flagged and escalated to the editor.
Stage 4 · Human
Editorial sign-off
The PAI editor reviews every page, checks a sample against source, and signs before publication.
Claim coverage · Jurisdiction × topic matrix
Claims captured in the last 30 days, by jurisdiction and topic. Click to reveal.
Show →
Live coverage

Jurisdiction × topic matrix

Verified-claim counts captured by the coverage engine at every jurisdiction × topic intersection in the last 30 days. Empty cells mean no claim has been captured yet — not that nothing happened.

Claims · 30d 0 80+
Window
Metric
Jurisdiction PrivacyGDPR-family, local DPAs AIAI Act, NIST-AI RMF, sector CyberNIS2, CISA, NCSC Enforcementfines, orders, settlements Consultationsopen rulemaking StandardsISO/IEC, CEN, NIST IPtraining-data, trade secret Total
EU
European UnionEU institutions · 27 MS
84today84 claims · 30d · last today 72today72 claims · 30d · last today 43yesterday43 claims · 30d · last yesterday 91today91 claims · 30d · last today 183d ago18 open consultations 914 Apr9 standards claims 411 Apr4 IP claims 321
GB
United KingdomUK-wide + devolved
51today51 privacy claims · 30d 46today46 AI claims · 30d 24yesterday24 cyber claims · NCSC-led 1916 Apr19 enforcement claims 717 Apr7 open consultations 312 Apr3 standards claims 209 Apr2 IP claims 152
DE
GermanyBund + 16 Länder
67today67 privacy claims · 17 DPAs 28today28 AI claims 22today22 cyber claims · BSI-led 38today38 enforcement claims 815 Apr8 open consultations 310 Apr3 standards claims (DIN) No IP claims captured yet 166
FR
FranceNational
78today78 privacy claims · CNIL-led 19yesterday19 AI claims 1115 Apr11 cyber claims · ANSSI 42today42 enforcement claims 412 Apr4 open consultations No standards claims captured yet No IP claims captured yet 154
IT
ItalyNational
29today29 privacy claims · Garante 1216 Apr12 AI claims 511 Apr5 cyber claims · ACN 1417 Apr14 enforcement claims 209 Apr2 open consultations No standards claims captured yet No IP claims captured yet 62
ES
SpainNational
26today26 privacy claims · AEPD 1117 Apr11 AI claims · AESIA-led 612 Apr6 cyber claims 1316 Apr13 enforcement claims 310 Apr3 open consultations No standards claims captured yet No IP claims captured yet 59
IE
IrelandNational
12today12 privacy claims · DPC 414 Apr4 AI claims 311 Apr3 cyber claims 18today18 enforcement claims — DPC Meta/Google 208 Apr2 consultations No standards claims captured yet No IP claims captured yet 39
US
United States (federal)FTC, NIST, CISA, agencies
22today22 privacy claims · no federal statute yet 44today44 AI claims 48today48 cyber claims · CISA + NIST 27today27 enforcement claims · FTC-led 1615 Apr16 open rulemakings 34today34 standards claims · NIST CSF / AI RMF 813 Apr8 IP claims · USCO GenAI guidance 199
US
CaliforniaState
39today39 privacy claims · CPPA + CA AG 28today28 AI claims · ADMT-led 510 Apr5 cyber claims 22today22 enforcement claims · CA AG + CPPA 1116 Apr11 open rulemakings No standards claims captured yet No IP claims captured yet 105
US
ColoradoState
414 Apr4 privacy claims 17today17 AI claims · Colorado AI Act 209 Apr2 enforcement claims 311 Apr3 open consultations 26
CA
CanadaFederal + provinces
12yesterday12 privacy claims · OPC-led 1015 Apr10 AI claims · AIDA still in committee 613 Apr6 cyber claims · CSE-led 310 Apr3 enforcement claims 208 Apr2 open consultations 33
JP
JapanNational
9today9 privacy claims · PPC 16today16 AI claims · AI Promotion Act 511 Apr5 cyber claims · NISC 209 Apr2 enforcement claims 213 Apr2 open consultations 34
KR
South KoreaNational
516 Apr5 privacy claims · PIPC 22today22 AI claims · AI Basic Act in force 412 Apr4 enforcement claims 31
CN
ChinaNational
814 Apr8 privacy claims · CAC 36today36 AI claims · CAC + MIIT 610 Apr6 cyber claims · MSS / MIIT 215 Apr2 open consultations 52
SG
SingaporeNational
413 Apr4 privacy claims · PDPC 11today11 AI claims · IMDA AI Verify 312 Apr3 cyber claims · CSA 211 Apr2 standards · ISO participation 20
AU
AustraliaFederal
11today11 privacy claims · OAIC 613 Apr6 AI claims · DISR-led 411 Apr4 cyber claims · ASD 209 Apr2 enforcement claims 712 Apr7 open consultations · Privacy Act Tranche 2 30
BR
BrazilNational
9today9 privacy claims · ANPD 815 Apr8 AI claims · PL 2338 in Senate 311 Apr3 enforcement claims 210 Apr2 open consultations 22
IN
IndiaNational + states
13today13 privacy claims · MeitY drafting rules 616 Apr6 AI claims · MeitY advisory 313 Apr3 cyber claims · CERT-In 8today8 consultations · DPDPA rules 30
EU 27 Implementation Tracker

Member State implementation status

Designated authorities, transposition status, and national derogations across the three pillars of EU digital regulation. Each cell links to the responsible body or quotes the operative provision; click a Member State name for the full per-jurisdiction page. Drawn from EU Implementation table (Airtable) and refreshed as PAI Research Team verifies each cell.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — designated authorities and national framework
2 Designated 24 Proposed 70 Not yet 66 Pending across 162 cells (27 MS × 6 columns)
Member State
Market Surveillance
0/27 designated or proposed
Notifying Authority
0/27 designated or proposed
Fundamental Rights (Art 77)
1/27 designated or proposed
Regulatory Sandbox
25/27 designated or proposed
Penalties Framework
0/27 designated or proposed
National AI Law
0/27 designated or proposed
AustriaNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
BelgiumNot yetNot yetSPFProposedPendingPending
BulgariaNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
CroatiaNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
CyprusNot yetPendingNot yetProposedPendingPending
Czech RepublicNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
DenmarkNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
EstoniaNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
FinlandNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
FranceNot yetNot yetNot yetCNILPendingPending
GermanyNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
GreeceNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
HungaryNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
IrelandNot yetPendingPendingNot yetPendingPending
ItalyNot yetPendingPendingProposedPendingPending
LatviaNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
LithuaniaNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
LuxembourgPendingPendingNot yetNot yetPendingPending
MaltaNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
NetherlandsNot yetNot yetPendingAPPendingPending
PolandNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
PortugalNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
RomaniaNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
SlovakiaNot yetNot yetNot yetProposedPendingPending
SloveniaPendingPendingNot yetProposedPendingPending
SpainPendingPendingNot yetIn forcePendingPending
SwedenNot yetNot yetNot yetIMYPendingPending
Directive (EU) 2022/2555 — transposition and competent authorities
3 Designated 132 Pending across 135 cells (27 MS × 5 columns)
Member State
Transposition
3/27 designated or proposed
Competent Authority
0/27 designated or proposed
Single Point of Contact
0/27 designated or proposed
CSIRT
0/27 designated or proposed
National Cyber Strategy
0/27 designated or proposed
AustriaPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
BelgiumPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
BulgariaPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
CroatiaPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
CyprusPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
Czech RepublicPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
DenmarkPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
EstoniaPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
FinlandPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
FrancePendingPendingPendingPendingPending
GermanyNISPendingPendingPendingPending
GreecePendingPendingPendingPendingPending
HungaryPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
IrelandPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
ItalyACNPendingPendingPendingPending
LatviaPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
LithuaniaPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
LuxembourgPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
MaltaPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
NetherlandsPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
PolandPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
PortugalPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
RomaniaPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
SlovakiaPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
SloveniaPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
SpainPendingPendingPendingPendingPending
SwedenSFSPendingPendingPendingPending
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — supervisory authorities and national derogations
27 Designated 108 Pending across 135 cells (27 MS × 5 columns)
Member State
Supervisory Authority
27/27 designated or proposed
Lead Authority
0/27 designated or proposed
National Implementing Law
0/27 designated or proposed
DPIA Mandatory List
0/27 designated or proposed
Breach Reporting Rules
0/27 designated or proposed
AustriaGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
BelgiumAPD-GBAPendingPendingPendingPending
BulgariaGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
CroatiaAZOPPendingPendingPendingPending
CyprusGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
Czech RepublicGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
DenmarkGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
EstoniaGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
FinlandGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
FranceGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
GermanyGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
GreeceGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
HungaryGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
IrelandGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
ItalyGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
LatviaGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
LithuaniaGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
LuxembourgGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
MaltaGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
NetherlandsGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
PolandGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
PortugalGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
RomaniaGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
SlovakiaGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
SloveniaGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
SpainAEPDPendingPendingPendingPending
SwedenGDPRPendingPendingPendingPending
Designated Proposed Not yet Infringement N/A Pending verification
Why are some cells empty? Coverage is live from each body's tracking-start date (from 1 Jan 2025 onward for most). An em-dash means no verified claim has yet been captured at that intersection — not that the topic is inactive. Use the Activity filter on a jurisdiction page to see what that jurisdiction's bodies are currently publishing on.