The rapid development of generative artificial intelligence has placed significant pressure on the traditional copyright concepts of authorship, originality, and ownership. Copyright law has historically proceeded on the assumption that creative expression is the product of human intellect, intention, and judgment. However, modern AI systems can now generate literary, artistic, musical, and software works with limited or no direct human involvement, raising difficult questions about whether such outputs can be protected and who, if anyone, should be recognised as their owner. This paper examines whether existing copyright doctrine can accommodate AI-generated works, particularly within the Indian legal framework. It analyses the human-centric foundations of authorship and originality, including standards such as “skill and judgment” and the “modicum of creativity,” and evaluates the limitations of user-centric, programmer-centric, and platform-centric ownership models. The paper argues that treating AI as an author would undermine the conceptual basis of copyright law, while leaving commercially valuable AI-generated outputs entirely unprotected may weaken incentives for technological innovation. It therefore proposes a limited, non-personhood-based sui generis protection framework grounded in human control, economic investment, and accountability. In the Indian context, where the Copyright Act, 1957 does not expressly address autonomous AI-generated works and Section 2(d) remains dependent on identifiable human agency, targeted statutory reform is necessary. The paper concludes that a control-based sui generis model would provide legal certainty and balanced protection without diluting the human-centric foundations of copyright law.