There Are Uncanny Similarities Between the US and India in AI Policy Evolution

As the technological transformation created by the developments in the artificial intelligence (AI) space has captured the attention of global leaders, entrepreneurs, and policymakers around the world, some sectors have quietly fallen through the cracks. Few have been feeling the sting of this shift quite like the creative industry.

In India and the United States, where creative industries like Bollywood and Hollywood play a defining role in national culture, the looming fear of job displacement at the hands of artificial intelligence is a genuine concern. To produce text that has a human-like cadence, AI models must be trained using millions of human-created works. And, in there lies the gripe of human artists and the creative industry as a whole; their works are being used to develop a technology that could have the potential of becoming their competition, and if unregulated, their replacement. It is clear that this type of transformative technology needs some type of regulation, but the question remains as to exactly what kind.

In response to these changes, both India and the US have made it clear that AI has a central place in their policy agendas. The rapid acceleration of AI technology is a part of a broader, capitalistic-driven motivation, in which both countries seem actively competing for technological dominance, economic advantage in the market, and global influence. In this type of environment, speed, scale, and most importantly, early market dominance are imperatives to hold influence. Consequently, governments appear incentivised to minimise regulation as it could potentially slow down domestic innovation. As a result, any legal uncertainty regarding unfair competition, copyright or labor protection is often tolerated, and perhaps even silently encouraged, in the interest of keeping a competitive edge. Within this framework, the concerns of creative professionals are not regarded as a central consideration, a tendency observable in both the US and India. This trend is apparent from the policies for AI development by both countries.  

India’s Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) published the first part of a working paper on generative AI and copyright on December 8, 2025 for public comments. The working paper appears to examine the AI revolution and offer a regulatory framework purportedly in the best interests of both technology and creative industries.

Their proposed solution? A “blanket” licensing framework compensating copyright holders, in exchange for their content to train AI models. Importantly, under this model, copyright holders are precluded from exempting their works from training use. In their desire for a quick resolution, the DPIIT has proposed a solution that has the potential for unfair competition and market displacement, and that leaves copyright holders under the spell of a compulsory license of their copyright. If creators have no say in who can access their works, then the purpose of copyright is substantially undermined. 

Similarly, in the US, Donald Trump and his administration have been quite vocal about their objectives for AI development, articulating a policy agenda that is purportedly aimed at maintaining American leadership in the global landscape. Through a series of executive orders, the administration has reduced regulatory barriers, thus rolling back Biden’s 2023 AI executive order that aimed to create a set of guardrails to protect consumers, as well as directing agencies to remove any “barriers” that could hinder AI innovation. The current measures are intended to accelerate domestic innovation, with the end goal being American domination in the AI revolution. 

In both countries, policymakers have prioritised innovation, seemingly at the expense of creative professions. In the United States, this imbalance has already manifested into organised resistance: workers have been fighting to make their voices heard, most notably through the 2023 strikes by Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA). The strike highlighted the shared concerns of artists and performers over job security, copyrights, and the effect of unregulated AI on their industry. The Trump administration has turned a blind eye to these concerns and have remained industry-centric and focused on bolstering AI development. India, while similarly promoting innovation, has at the very least, acknowledged the creative sector’s stake in this debate. However, India’s current proposed solution appears imbalanced. For one, it assumes that use of copyrighted works for AI training will always result in copyright violation. Unless the output to a prompt from an AI tool resembles a work which the tool was trained on, there cannot be any copyright infringement in the use of such work.  Secondly, it appears to disregard the concerns of the creative industry that AI tools can gradually displace the market for their works. Ultimately, both countries risk undermining the markets and rights of creative industries that have long contributed to their cultural landscape. 

Halting the development of AI altogether is neither feasible nor desirable. Attempting to arrest transformative technologies is ultimately an attempt to hinder social and economic progress. Instead, it is imperative that we shift the focus of AI development. Governmental frameworks regarding AI innovation must prioritise human-centred development. AI innovation must be deliberately channeled towards sectors where it can meaningfully improve the quality of life, rather than result in labor displacement. Fields such as education, healthcare, climate change and scientific research could substantially benefit from AI-assisted innovation, particularly in areas of access, efficiency, and analytical capability. Providing access to the tech industry for a potential wholesale replacement of human creativity cannot be treated as a legitimate policy objective.

Cultural industries such as Hollywood and Bollywood contribute to major sources of employment and revenue in both countries. Any AI innovation in this sector must steer clear of disrupting the human creativity – else it could lead to loss of livelihood for these creative professionals. Embracing innovation is essential for societal progress. But it needs to be seen how many takers there are for watching and reading synthetic content.

Maya Nair is an aspiring law student pursuing her undergraduate degree in Texas A&M University, US.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.