Industry leaders from India’s film, music, and media sectors rally for a consent-driven approach to AI use, opposing centralised licensing models and emphasising principles of consent, credit, and compensation in the evolving AI landscape.
India’s creative industries have stepped up their campaign for a consent-based approach to artificial intelligence, with the Creative Economy Forum gathering senior figures from film, music, television and media in New Delhi for a closed-door discussion on how generative AI should interact with copyright and intellectual property.
The meeting, held at NITI Aayog and attended by Sanjeev Sanyal of the Economic Advisory Council to the prime minister, came as sector leaders pressed their case against a proposed blanket licensing model for AI training. The forum argued that rights holders should be able to decide whether their work is used, negotiate terms in the market and set conditions around how content is deployed, rather than be forced into a state-managed system with fixed royalty rates.
Industry representatives also warned that a centralised rate-setting approach could prove too blunt for a market that spans major studios, broadcasters, music labels and individual creators. According to the forum, the model would risk weakening price discovery, limiting bargaining power and leaving safety concerns unresolved, particularly where brands, characters and child-facing content are involved.
The debate reflects a wider international conversation about generative AI and the creative economy. The US Federal Trade Commission held a similar roundtable in 2023 on the impact of AI on creative workers, while the World Economic Forum has argued that any new framework must balance innovation with creator protection. In New Delhi, the Indian industry said that balance should rest on three principles: consent, credit and compensation.
Source Reference Map
Inspired by headline at: [1]
Sources by paragraph:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
5
Notes:
The article was published on April 28, 2026. A similar event was reported by Dailyhunt on the same date, indicating potential duplication. ([m.dailyhunt.in](https://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/english/daily%2Bprabhat-epaper-dlyprbte/creative%2Beconomy%2Bforum%2Bconvenes%2Bhighlevel%2Broundtable%2Bwith%2Bsanjeev%2Bsanyal%2Bon%2Bgenerative%2Bai%2Bcopyright%2Bfuture%2Bof%2Bindias%2Bcreative%2Bindustries-newsid-n710310522?utm_source=openai)) The Economic Times reported on Indian publishers seeking copyright protection against generative AI models on January 26, 2024, suggesting that the topic has been covered previously. ([economictimes.indiatimes.com](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/indian-publishers-seek-rules-for-copyright-protection-against-generative-ai-models/articleshow/107154425.cms?from=mdr&utm_source=openai)) The article includes references to events from 2023 and 2024, which may affect its freshness.
Quotes check
Score:
4
Notes:
The article includes direct quotes attributed to Sanjeev Sanyal and other industry leaders. However, these quotes cannot be independently verified through the provided sources. The lack of verifiable sources raises concerns about the authenticity of the quotes.
Source reliability
Score:
3
Notes:
The article originates from indiasnews.net, a source that cannot be independently verified. The lack of information about the publication’s credibility and independence raises concerns about the reliability of the source.
Plausibility check
Score:
6
Notes:
The article discusses a roundtable event on generative AI and copyright, which aligns with ongoing global discussions on the topic. However, the lack of independent verification and the presence of similar reports from other sources suggest that the content may be recycled or unoriginal.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The article raises significant concerns regarding its freshness, originality, source reliability, and verification independence. The presence of similar reports from other sources and the lack of independently verifiable information suggest that the content may be recycled or unoriginal. The reliance on a single, unverifiable source further undermines the credibility of the article.
