No, and the reason is structural rather than philosophical. The Copyright Act 2059 (2002) never mentions artificial intelligence — but every provision that creates, transfers, times or enforces a copyright is written around a person or an organisation. A tool fits none of them.
Key takeaways
- Sec. 2(b) defines an author as "a person who creates a work". There is no second definition.
- "Artificial", "automatic" and "software" appear zero times in the Act, though a computer program is listed as a protectable work.
- Sec. 2(h) allows a person or organisation to be the owner — a legal person, not a program.
- Sec. 14(1) measures the term from the author's death, which a tool does not have.
- Sec. 24(1) needs a written agreement to transfer, and Sec. 38 needs someone to file a case.
- Who owns AI-assisted work is a different, open question. This page does not pretend to settle it.
Everything below was read on 1 October 2026 from the official English text published by WIPO Lex. Copyright in Nepal sits with the Registrar designated under Sec. 30(1). IP Sewa does not file copyright applications — our filing work is industrial property at the Department of Industry — so take the copyright questions here to that office or to an advocate.
What does the Act say an author is?
Sec. 2(b) is seven words long: "Author" means a person who creates a work. The Act offers no alternative, no deeming provision and no category for a work with no human behind it.
Sec. 2(a) is equally plain about what a work is: something "presented originally and intellectually" in literature, art, science or any other field. Both halves of the sentence describe something a person does.
Does the Act mention artificial intelligence at all?
Not once. We counted across the whole statute: artificial, automatic and software each return zero.
That is not because the drafters ignored computers. Sec. 2(a)(10) lists a computer program as a protectable work, and Sec. 21 gives its lawful owner the right to make one backup copy. Sec. 3(2) protects a database "readable with or without support of machine".
So the Act knows what software is. It has simply never been asked whether software can be an author, and nothing in the text answers that question in the machine's favour.
How does the Act treat software itself?
As subject matter, and in some detail. A computer program is a protectable work under Sec. 2(a)(10), and Sec. 3(2) extends protection to a database "readable with or without support of machine".
Sec. 21 then carves out a narrow permission: the lawful holder of a program may reproduce one copy where the original is lost, destroyed or unusable, or to keep records.
That is a statute paying careful attention to software. It simply treats every program as something a person wrote. Our guide to software copyright registration works through what that means for a Nepali development team.
Can anything other than a human hold a copyright?
Yes, and this is where most discussions go wrong. Sec. 2(h) defines the copyright owner to include "a person or organization" in whom the economic right is vested or to whom it is transferred.
Sec. 6(2) then names specific situations in which a non-human owner holds the right — for example the organisation that directed a joint work, a publisher of an anonymous work, or the producer of an audio-visual work. A business should still not rely on those exceptions or on having paid: it should take a written assignment. Sec. 40 goes furthest — the Government of Nepal holds copyright in works it prepares.
Every one of those is a legal person: something that can hold property, sign a contract, be sued and sue. The question is not whether an owner must be human. It is whether an owner must be capable of the things the Act requires owners to do.
Which provisions actually presuppose a person?
Four of them, and they cover the whole life of a right: creation, duration, transfer and enforcement. Each is a separate obstacle rather than a restatement of the same one.
| Provision | What it requires | Can a tool do it? |
|---|---|---|
| Sec. 2(b) | An author is a person who creates a work | No. The definition excludes it |
| Sec. 14(1) | The term runs from the author's death | No. There is no death to count from |
| Sec. 24(1) | Rights transfer by written agreement | No. It cannot be a party |
| Sec. 8(2) | Moral rights pass to an heir on death | No. It has no successor |
| Sec. 32 and Sec. 38 | Someone complains, and files within three months | No. It cannot act |
Read together these are not a drafting accident you could patch with one amendment. The whole scheme is built for a holder who can decide things.
Why does the term of protection matter so much?
Because Sec. 14(1) protects the economic and moral rights "throughout the life of the author and in the case of his/her death until fifty years computed from the year of his death".
A term measured from a life cannot be computed where there is no life. Sec. 14(5) gives applied art and photographs a flat twenty-five years from preparation, so the Act can do fixed terms — it just does not use one here. The arithmetic is set out in how long copyright lasts in Nepal.
Could a tool sign away rights or licence them?
Sec. 24(1) says the owner may transfer economic rights "by making a written agreement". Sec. 24(2) deals with moral rights, taking effect after the author's death, on terms that the author's name stays on the work.
A contract needs a party with capacity. Whatever a platform's terms of service say about outputs, that is an agreement between the platform and you — the tool is the subject matter, not a signatory.
Who would bring a case if the output were copied?
Someone with standing and a diary. Sec. 32(1) lets a person complain to the police, who may search and seize infringing copies. Sec. 38 requires the case to be filed within three months of knowledge of the infringement.
Both steps need a claimant who notices, decides and acts inside a fixed window. That is the practical end of the argument, whatever view one takes of the definitions. Our note on copyright infringement law in Nepal covers the route.
So who owns AI-assisted work in Nepal?
That is a genuinely open question and we are not going to pretend otherwise. We looked for a Nepali decision, an amendment or a Registrar practice note on machine-generated work and found none.
What we can say is narrow. The Act gives rights to authors, and defines an author as a person who creates a work. How much human contribution makes someone the creator of a particular output is not answered anywhere in the text.
Anyone telling you that light editing is enough, or that a prompt is not enough, is stating a preference rather than a rule. We work through the practical positions in copyright for AI-generated content in Nepal.
What should you actually do about it?
- Decide who the claimed author is. Name a person or an organisation. If you cannot name one, that is the real problem.
- Keep the human record. Briefs, drafts, rejected versions and edits are what any later argument will turn on.
- Put the engagement in writing. Payment alone should not be relied on to transfer the economic right, so take a signed written assignment under Sec. 24.
- Read the tool's terms separately. Permission to use an output is contract, not copyright, and it binds only you and the platform.
- Protect the brand on the other track. A name or logo is a trade mark question, whatever made the artwork.
- Take advice before anything expensive. A campaign, a book or a product launch is the wrong moment to discover the position is unsettled.
A template for the written part is in our note on copyright assignment agreements in Nepal.
Does registering the work settle it?
No. Sec. 5(1) makes registration unnecessary to acquire a right, and Sec. 5(2) makes it voluntary. Neither creates authorship where the Act does not already find it.
It is also worth knowing that the word "certificate" appears nowhere in the Act, and no section attaches a presumption of ownership to a registration. A registration is dated evidence, not a ruling. We set out what it does in your copyright certificate explained and the filing steps in copyright registration in Nepal.
Claiming human authorship you do not have would be a poor idea in any event, because the claim is the first thing an opponent will test.
Is the law likely to change?
We cannot say, and we would rather not guess. What we can report is the current state: the Act carries one amendment, made by an Act of 2063 (2006), and nothing in the consolidated text addresses machine-generated work.
We also found no Nepali judgment and no published Registrar practice note on the subject. The consolidated statutes are kept by the Nepal Law Commission, which is the first place a change would show.
Does copyright protect an AI-made logo or name?
Not usefully, and this is where the question becomes commercial. Brand protection in Nepal comes from registering a trade mark at the Department of Industry under the Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act 1965, which never mentions copyright.
That system does not care what drew the logo. It is first-to-file, uses the NICE classification of 45 classes with one application each, publishes accepted marks with an opposition period, and gives a seven-year term that is renewable.
Check what is already registered through our trade mark search, read the comparison in copyright versus trademark in Nepal, and see our trade mark registration service if the name matters.
What does this look like in practice?
Imagine a Kathmandu studio that generates a hundred poster concepts, picks one, redraws it by hand and sells prints. Two things are true at once. Nobody can argue the generator owns anything, because no provision in the Act reaches it. Whether the studio owns the finished print depends on what it added, and that is the part no Nepali source yet answers. This is an illustration, not a real case, but it is the shape every such dispute will take.
Common mistakes
- Treating a platform subscription as proof of ownership. It is permission between you and the platform.
- Labelling work "AI-generated" in a registration while claiming to be its author.
- Assuming a foreign decision about machine authorship states Nepali law. None of them does.
- Publishing raw output commercially and relying on exclusivity you have not established.
- Forgetting the output may resemble someone else's protected work — see AI-generated images and copyright.
- Protecting a brand with copyright instead of a trade mark filing.
In short
A tool cannot be an author under Sec. 2(b), cannot be a party to a transfer under Sec. 24(1), has no death for Sec. 14(1) to count from and cannot file a case under Sec. 38. That much the text decides. Everything about who owns assisted work remains open, and anyone who tells you otherwise is guessing confidently.
People also search for
- ChatGPT and copyright law for creators
- Who owns AI-generated music?
- Software copyright registration in Nepal
- The copyright registration process in Nepal
- Copyright for AI-generated content in Nepal
Copyright questions belong with the Registrar's Office or an advocate, and we will say so rather than take the work. If what you actually need to protect is a brand name, a logo or a product, talk to the IP Sewa team.
Comments (0)
Leave a comment
Replying to — cancel