Under India’s chairmanship, the BRICS 2026 New Delhi Declaration on AI closely mirrors the previous year’s Rio statement on intellectual property rights and AI training, adding little substantive change despite significant developments in Indian AI copyright policy over the past year.
- 2026 BRICS AI copyright line repeats 2025 Rio wording exactly
- Adds cooperation on AI in intellectual property offices plus cultural risks recognition
- Only one commitment to implement AI governance guidelines, focused domestically
What happened
The BRICS New Delhi Declaration, adopted with India as chair in 2026, essentially restated the same language on AI training and copyright that was agreed a year earlier in Rio de Janeiro 2025. The key sentence on promoting respect for intellectual property rights and fair remuneration used in AI training was copied verbatim. This consistency persisted despite several important developments within India during this period, such as a notable court ruling on AI training data, pending government working papers on AI copyright, and the handling of novel AI patent applications.
Beyond this repetition, the New Delhi Declaration introduced two modest additions. It included collaboration among BRICS intellectual property offices on AI applications alongside traditional patent and cultural knowledge domains. It also contained a new passage warning of risks related to the misappropriation of insufficiently represented cultural heritage and values in AI datasets, although this was framed as a recognition of risk rather than binding commitments or specific actions.
Why it matters
The near-verbatim repetition of the AI-related copyright stance reflects BRICS’ cautious approach to artificial intelligence governance, signaling no major policy shifts or new enforcement mechanisms at the multilateral level despite rapid AI advancements and ongoing discussions within India. This underlines the challenges of forging shared technology governance frameworks among diverse economic powers with differing priorities and regulatory landscapes.
The modest new language on cooperation among intellectual property offices and cultural heritage risks serves as an opening for future engagement but lacks concrete enforcement or meaningful policy commitments. The declaration’s use of verbs like “recognise” and “encourage” rather than “mandate” or “require” illustrates the limited binding force of such summit statements. Implementation, where explicitly mentioned, is left to domestic frameworks, spotlighting key Indian ministries tasked with actual AI policy development and enforcement.
What to watch next
Attention will focus on India’s upcoming steps as BRICS chair, especially how the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) advance AI copyright policy domestically following this diplomatic reiteration. The still unpublished DPIIT copyright working paper and ongoing appeals in Indian courts related to AI training data use will shape the practical trajectory of India’s AI framework.
Moreover, monitoring whether BRICS intellectual property offices deepen cooperation in AI application patent examination and rights management will be important to gauge whether the declaratory language translates into substantive coordination. The international AI governance landscape, including parallel dialogues such as those in Shanghai referenced by the declaration, will also be vital contexts for BRICS’ evolving stance on AI’s creative and cultural implications.