Hubbry Logo
Copyright law of IndiaCopyright law of IndiaMain
Open search
Copyright law of India
Community hub
Copyright law of India
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Copyright law of India
Copyright law of India
Copyright law of India
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Copyright Act, 1957 as amended governs the subject of copyright law in India.[1] The Act is applicable from 21 January 1958.[2] The history of copyright law in India can be traced back to its colonial era under the British Empire.[3] The Copyright Act 1957 was the first post-independence copyright legislation in India and the law has been amended six times since 1957.[4] The most recent amendment was in the year 2012, through the Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012.[5]

India is a member of most of the important international conventions governing the area of copyright law, including the Berne Convention of 1886 (as modified at Paris in 1971), the Universal Copyright Convention of 1951, the Rome Convention of 1961 and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).[6] Initially, India was not a member of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) but subsequently entered the treaty in 2013.

[edit]

Prior to 21 January 1958, the Indian Copyright Act, 1914, was applicable in India and still applicable for works created prior to 21 January 1958, when the new Act came into force.[2] The Indian Copyright Act, 1914 was based on the Imperial Copyright Act of 1911 passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but was slightly modified in terms of its application to Indian law.[7][2] According to this Act, the period of copyright for photographs was 50 years from the time it was created (Act language is: "the term for which copyright shall subsist in photographs shall be fifty years from the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived, and the person who was owner of such negative at the time when such negative was made shall be deemed to be the author of the work, and, where such owner is a body corporate, the body corporate shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to reside within the parts of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends if it has established a place of business within such parts.")[8] For photographs published, before 21 January 1958 in India, the period of copyright is thus 50 years, as for them the old Act is applicable.[2][failed verification]

[edit]

Copyright is a bundle of rights given by the law to the creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and the producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings. The rights provided under Copyright law include the rights of reproduction of the work, communication of the work to the public, adaptation of the work and translation of the work. The scope and duration of protection provided under copyright law varies with the nature of the protected work.

In a 2016 copyright lawsuit, the Delhi High Court states that copyright is "not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that confers on authors the absolute ownership of their creations. It is designed rather to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public. Copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors in order to benefit the public."[9]

Types of works protected

[edit]

The Indian copyright law protects literary works, dramatic works, musical works, artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recordings.[10]

Freedom of panorama

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Freedom of panorama § India.[edit]
Left: The Palace of Assembly in Chandigarh, authored by Le Corbusier. It has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2016. Right: Statue of Unity, the world's tallest statue, was completed in 2018 and authored by sculptor Ram V. Sutar.

Freedom of panorama is dealt with in sections 52, s–u(i) of the copyright law of India. Both (s) and (t) of section 52 applies to depictions of architecture, sculptures, and works of artistic craftsmanship through drawing, painting, engraving, and photography, while (u)(i) applies to inclusion of all types of artistic works in films. These provisions are applicable if the work is "permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access." (u)(ii) is for the incidental cinematographic inclusion of works not located in public spaces.[11]

The case The Daily Calendar Supplying v. The United Concern (1958) concerned the Daily Calendar Supplying Bureau's commercial distributions of slightly modified reproductions of an oil painting of Lord Subramania by the firm United Concern. The firm acquired artistic property rights over the painting from its artist T. M. Subramaniam, soon after the artistic work was created in 1947. The user was ordered to pay 1,000 rupees worth of copyright damage to the firm. The Madras High Court rejected the argument of the Daily Calendar Supplying in their 1964 appeal, that their act falls under Section 52(t), since the original painting was still under the artist's private custody even if free copies were already being distributed to several temples in the south. This distribution is "not tantamount to his installing his original work in a public place."[12]

The Delhi High Court is expected to hear a recent case from February 2023, concerning Acko General Insurance's exploitation of Humanity mural painted on a Mumbai building, in their advertising campaign, that prompted St+Art India Foundation and the mural author Paola Delfin Gaytan to send a legal notice urging the firm to take down both the billboard material and the social media posts of their campaign. Acko, in turn, denied copyright infringement and claimed their use is covered by freedom of panorama as the work is "permanently situated in a public place to which the public has access." The court, having said in a November 10 order that the billboard was "clearly an advertisement", will hear the case in February 2024, while ordering the firm to delete all online posts with the presence of the artwork.[13]

[edit]
  • Literary
  • dramatic,
  • musical and
  • artistic works
 lifetime of the author + sixty years[14] from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies.
  • Anonymous and pseudonymous works
  • Cinematograph films
  • Sound records
  • Government work
  • Public undertakings
  • International Agencies
  • photographs
 until sixty years[14] from the beginning of the calendar years next following the year in which the work is first published[15]

Foreign works

[edit]

Copyrights of works of the countries mentioned in the International Copyright Order are protected in India, as if such works are Indian works. The term of copyright in a work shall not exceed that which is enjoyed by it in its country of origin.[16]

[edit]

The author of a work is generally considered as the first owner of the copyright under the Copyright Act 1957.[17] However, for works made in the course of an author's employment under a "contract of service" or apprenticeship, the employer is considered as the first owner of copyright, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.[15]

The concept of joint authorship is recognised in Section. 2(z) of the Act which provides that "a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of one author is not distinct from the contribution of the other author or authors" is a work of joint authorship. This concept has been elucidated in cases like Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd. and Ors.

Section 19 of the Copyright Act 1957 lays down the modes of assignment of copyright in India. Assignment can only be in writing and must specify the work, the period of assignment and the territory for which assignment is made.[18] If the period of assignment is not specified in the agreement, it shall be deemed to be five years and if the territorial extent of assignment is not specified, it shall be presumed to be limited to the territories of India.[19] In a recent judgement (Pine Labs Private Limited vs Gemalto Terminals India Limited), a division bench of the Delhi High Court confirmed this position and held that in cases wherein the duration of assignment is not specified, the duration shall be deemed to be five years and the copyright shall revert to the author after five years.[20]

[edit]

The Copyright Act 1957 exempts certain acts from the ambit of copyright infringement.[21] Section 52 of Copyright Act, 1957 deal with the Fair Dealing Exceptions.[22]

Permissible

[edit]

India follows a hybrid approach that allows:

  • fair dealing with any copyrighted work for certain specifically mentioned purposes[23] and
  • certain specific activities enumerated in the statute.[24]

Permissible use under fair dealing

[edit]

India follows a narrower approach, called fair dealing, towards copyright exceptions compared to American legal concept of fair use. While many people tend to use the term fair use to denote copyright exceptions in India, it is a factually wrong usage, because the correct term for India is fair dealings.[25] While the fair use approach followed in the US can be applied for any kind of uses, the narrower fair dealing approach followed in India is clearly limited towards the purposes of

  1. private or personal use, including research,[26] and education,[27]
  2. criticism or review,[28]
  3. reporting of current events and current affairs, including the reporting of a lecture delivered in public.[29] For example, based on the Indian copyright law, one can use a screenshot or a downloaded image of a copyrighted airport layout (for an ongoing construction, upgrade, or future development plan) for public use. This includes things like for-profit commercial news reporting or on a not-for-profit platform such as Wikipedia. However, be aware that Wikipedia may have its own rules that may or may not restrict this (see Commons:Screenshots and Wikipedia:Uploading images), even if it's permitted under Indian law.

Case law example for permissible use of copyrighted material: While the term fair dealing has not been defined anywhere in the Copyright Act 1957, the concept of 'fair dealing' has been discussed in different judgments, including the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Academy of General Education v. B. Malini Mallya (2009) and the decision of the High Court of Kerala in Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma.[30]

In September 2016, the Delhi High Court ruled in Delhi University's Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop case, which sold photocopies of chapters from academic textbooks was not infringing on their publisher's copyright, arguing that the use of copyright to "stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public" outweighed its use by the publishers to maintain commercial control of their property.[9][27] However, in December 2016, the ruling was reversed and taken back to court, citing that there were "triable issues" in the case.[31]

Permissible use under panorama

[edit]

India's copyright law under Sections 52(s), 52(t), and 52( allows permissible free use of copyrighted material under the Freedom of Panorama (FoP).[22]

  • Section 52(s): “the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a work of architecture or the display of a work of architecture” is exempt.[22]
  • Section 52(t): similar exemption for sculptures or other works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently situated in a public place or premises accessible to the public.[22]
  • Section 52(u): allows inclusion of such artistic works in cinematograph film, etc., if they are permanently situated in a publicly accessible place; or are incidental/background.[22]
[edit]

The Copyright Act 1957 provides three kinds of remedies - administrative remedies, civil remedies and criminal remedies.[32] The administrative remedies provided under the statute include detention of the infringing goods by the customs authorities.[33] The civil remedies are provided under Chapter XII of the Copyright Act 1957 and the remedies provided include injunctions, damages and account of profits.[34] The criminal remedies are provided under Chapter XIII of the statute and the remedies provided against copyright infringement include imprisonment (up to 3 years) along with a fine (up to 200,000 Rupees).[35]

Jurisdiction [Place of Suing] Under Copyright Act, 1957 - in 2015 the jurisdiction law regarding copyright violation underwent significant change through the judgement of the Supreme Court in the 2015 case Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Dalia Archived 2022-04-08 at the Wayback Machine – If cause of action has arisen wholly or in part in place where plaintiff resides or is doing business suit has to be filed at such place – Plaintiff cannot drag defendant to far off place under guise that he carries business there also. --- Interpretation of statutes – Mischief Rule – Construction that suppresses even counter mischief has to be adopted.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Copyright law of India

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The copyright law of India is codified primarily in the Copyright Act, 1957, which grants exclusive legal protection to creators of original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, as well as to producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings, by conferring rights against unauthorized reproduction, distribution, public performance, and adaptation. Enacted on June 4, 1957, and effective from January 21, 1958, the Act consolidates earlier colonial-era provisions and extends uniformly across the country, with registration optional but serving as evidence in disputes. Administered by the Copyright Office under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, it balances proprietary interests through limited-term durations—typically the author's life plus 60 years for literary works—and exceptions permitting for purposes such as private study, criticism, review, and reporting current events. The legislation has undergone multiple amendments, including significant 2012 revisions to accommodate digital technologies by enhancing performer rights, introducing statutory licensing for broadcasting, and addressing online infringement, alongside procedural updates via the 2021 Copyright Rules to streamline electronic filing and appellate mechanisms. Further strengthening enforcement, the 2023 amendment escalated maximum penalties for knowing infringement from ₹200,000 to ₹1,000,000, reflecting efforts to deter commercial-scale violations amid rising digital piracy challenges.

Historical Development

Colonial Era and Early Legislation

The Indian Copyright Act of 1914 represented the primary colonial-era framework for copyright protection in British , enacted as an adaptation of the United Kingdom's Copyright Act of 1911 to extend imperial protections across the empire. This legislation modified and supplemented the 1911 Act's provisions, applying them to British India—including territories such as British Baluchistan, , and the Sonthal Parganas—while prioritizing the facilitation of British literary and artistic works within colonial markets. Earlier attempts at regulation, such as the limited 1847 Copyright Act addressing engravings and prints, had proven insufficient for broader creative outputs, leaving a vacuum that the 1914 Act filled primarily to safeguard imperial economic interests over indigenous . The Act granted exclusive rights to , , and for literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, but its scope was constrained to original expressions fixed in tangible form by British subjects or works first published in the or with reciprocal ties to . This structure inherently disadvantaged local creators, as much of 's —encompassing oral , traditional music, and unnotated compositions—failed to meet the fixation requirement, rendering it ineligible for and vulnerable to uncompensated appropriation by colonial publishers. British firms could thus reprint Indian manuscripts or adapt regional motifs without royalties, exploiting the absence of robust enforcement mechanisms or reciprocity for non-British works, which prioritized the flow of metropolitan content into colonial domains rather than equitable safeguards for peripheral producers. Following India's independence in , the 1914 Act persisted as the operative law without immediate overhaul, serving as an interim measure amid transitional governance until its repeal by the Copyright Act of 1957, which took effect on January 21, 1958. This continuity underscored the Act's entrenched inadequacies for a nation's diverse creative , where colonial-era limitations continued to hinder protection for evolving local industries in publishing, , and , prompting the need for comprehensive reform to address authorship attribution and economic incentives absent in the imperial model. The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act No. 14 of 1957) received presidential assent on June 4, 1957, and entered into force on January 21, 1958, supplanting the Indian Copyright Act, 1914, which had extended British colonial provisions inadequately suited to India's independent economic context. This inaugural post-independence statute codified as an incentive mechanism for original expression, granting creators proprietary control to encourage investment in literary and artistic output amid India's nascent , , and recording sectors, where unauthorized reproductions had previously eroded commercial viability. Central to the Act's structure, Section 13 enumerates qualifying works for subsistence of , encompassing literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic creations; cinematograph films; and sound recordings, provided they are fixed in a tangible medium and demonstrate minimal independent of mere ideas or facts. Section 17 vests initial ownership presumptively in the , reinforcing personal agency in creation, though with pragmatic qualifications: for works produced under employment contracts, government commissions, or public undertakings, ownership defaults to the employer or commissioning entity unless contractually overridden, reflecting empirical recognition that institutional resources often enable such outputs. Designed with international reciprocity in view, the Act incorporated Berne Convention baselines—such as automatic protection without formalities and emphasis on economic rights including , public performance, and —prioritizing authors' capacity to monetize works through exclusive exploitation, which empirical evidence from comparable jurisdictions suggested would stimulate cultural industries in resource-constrained settings. This framework particularly targeted protections for literary and artistic domains, extending to emerging audiovisual formats to counter risks in India's expanding film production, which by the late 1950s accounted for significant domestic output, while grounding rights in tangible fixation to ensure enforceability without undue administrative burden.

Major Amendments and Reforms

The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994, explicitly classified computer programs as literary works eligible for protection, while introducing rental rights for computer programs, cinematograph films, and sound recordings to prevent widespread unauthorized reproduction facilitated by commercial rentals. These measures responded to the proliferation of software and media technologies, aligning with requirements under the WTO framework that ratified in 1995, thereby preserving economic incentives for creators by extending control over distribution channels without curtailing foundational reproduction rights. The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1999, enhanced protections for performers and broadcasting organizations by extending the term of their and providing reciprocal safeguards for foreign and broadcasts, ensuring that Indian reciprocated protections granted by other nations. This amendment further complied with TRIPS minima on performers' , causally bolstering against unauthorized fixation and communication of live , which had previously lacked statutory duration limits, thus incentivizing investment in performance production amid growing audio-visual markets. The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, marked the most extensive overhaul, incorporating digital-era provisions such as protections for technological protection measures (TPMs) and rights management information, alongside exceptions permitting circumvention for purposes like research, private use, and access by visually impaired persons. It also introduced statutory licensing for broadcasting of literary and musical works, expanded performers' rights to cover digital transmissions in line with the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), and clarified expansions without shifting to broader doctrines. While achieving compliance with WIPO Internet Treaties and maintaining TRIPS-aligned incentives through preserved economic rights, the amendment's permissive exceptions to TPM circumvention—allowing bypass for noninfringing uses—have drawn critique for potentially undermining robust digital enforcement, as evidenced by persistent challenges despite these formal safeguards.

Fundamental Principles

Under the Copyright Act, 1957, is defined in Section 14 as the , subject to the Act's provisions, to do or authorize acts such as reproducing the work in any material form (including electronic storage), issuing copies to the public, performing or communicating the work publicly, making adaptations, translations, or cinematograph films based on it, and selling or renting such copies or films. This incentivizes creators by granting control over exploitation, enabling economic returns on original expressions while excluding mere ideas, procedures, or methods. The rights are not absolute but limited by exceptions like for criticism, research, or private use under Sections 52 and 53. Copyright subsists automatically throughout India upon the creation of an original work that is fixed in a tangible medium, without requiring registration or formalities, as per Section 13, which mandates originality and expression in literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, film, or sound recording forms. Section 16 reinforces that no copyright exists except as provided by the Act, ensuring protection only for qualifying originals to avoid overreach. Registration with the Copyright Office under Section 45, while optional, serves as prima facie evidence in disputes, facilitating enforcement. For computer programs, classified under literary works, the process is conducted fully online through the Copyright Office portal at copyright.gov.in using Form XIV. Applicants register on the portal, select "Literary/Computer Programme," complete the form with details on authorship, publication, and any necessary no-objection certificates, upload source code excerpts (such as the first and last 25 pages or lines, plus key sections in PDF format, with confidential parts redacted if needed), provide two copies for unpublished works, and include a Power of Attorney if filed by an advocate. Fees are paid online via net banking, UPI, or card, followed by submission and receipt of a Diary Number for tracking. A 30-day waiting period allows for objections, after which examination occurs; applicants respond to any discrepancies within 30 days. Approval results in issuance of a digital registration certificate. The scope adheres to the territoriality principle, limiting protection to acts within India's jurisdiction, regardless of the work's nationality, unless extended by international agreements. Infringement suits must be filed where the violation occurs or the resides, emphasizing domestic . Unlike trademarks, which safeguard source-identifying symbols under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, to prevent consumer confusion in commerce, protects the expressive content of works themselves, not their commercial use as brands. This distinction prevents overlap, with focusing on creative monopoly and trademarks on market distinction.

Categories of Protected Works

The Copyright Act, 1957, under Section 13, delineates the categories of works eligible for protection, encompassing original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works; cinematograph films; and sound recordings, provided they meet the and fixation in a tangible medium. This closed list excludes ideas, procedures, or mere facts, focusing instead on their expression. Literary works include books, articles, scripts, and, following the 1994 amendment, computer programs treated as such due to their expression in source or object code, along with tables and compilations like databases if featuring original selection or arrangement. In India, this covers Bollywood film screenplays, such as those for narrative-driven productions, and proprietary software code developed by firms like Infosys, where courts have upheld protection against unauthorized replication based on the program's expressive structure rather than functional utility. Dramatic works extend to choreographic notations and stage plays, while musical works protect compositions and notations excluding lyrics, which fall under literary. Artistic works comprise paintings, sculptures, drawings, photographs, and architectural designs, with protection applying even to those permanently situated in public places, though Section 52(1)(s) permits non-infringing reproduction via , , , or of such works accessible to the public. Cinematograph films safeguard the aggregated work—including visuals, sounds, and narrative—as distinct from underlying scripts or music, exemplified by outputs from studios like . Sound recordings protect fixed audio performances, separate from compositions, such as standalone tracks in Indian regional music albums. Notably absent from Section 13 is explicit protection for expressions of or , which lack identifiable authorship and thus fail the originality criterion tied to individual creation, resulting in vulnerability to external commercialization without communal recourse under . This gap persists despite supplementary mechanisms like the for defensive patent disclosures, underscoring copyright's individual-centric framework over collective heritage preservation.

Rights and Ownership

Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, defines copyright as the exclusive right to perform or authorize specific acts in respect of a work or substantial part thereof, enabling holders to commercialize their creations through reproduction, distribution, public performance, and adaptation. These rights apply differentially across categories: for literary, dramatic, or musical works, holders may reproduce in material form including digital storage, issue copies to the public not previously issued, perform in public, communicate via wire or wireless means, make cinematograph films or sound recordings, translate, and create adaptations such as dramatizations or arrangements. For artistic works, additional rights include selling or letting for hire originals or copies, and exhibiting publicly if not for trade or architecture. Cinematograph films grant rights to make copies, cause public viewing or hearing in public, sell or rent copies, and communicate to the public. Sound recordings confer rights to make copies, sell or rent, cause public hearing, and communicate to the public. These provisions empower copyright holders to exploitation, capturing market value via royalties and agreements that restrict unauthorized use, thereby incentivizing in creation and distribution. In the film industry, which generated approximately ₹18,000 in in 2023, rights over public screening and enable producers to to theaters, streaming platforms, and international markets, mitigating leakage from unauthorized distribution estimated at 20-30% due to . For software, treated as literary works since the 1994 amendment clarified protection, and rights safeguard against copying, supporting India's IT sector valued at $194 billion in exports for 2023, where models drive 70% of through enterprise agreements. In music, rights over musical works and sound recordings facilitate control over digital streaming and physical sales; the industry, contributing ₹2,500 annually by 2023, relies on these to to platforms like , countering losses quantified at ₹1,200 yearly from unauthorized s. The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994, extended analogous economic rights to performers under Section 38A, granting exclusive authority to prevent unauthorized fixation, reproduction, or communication of live performances, such as actors in films or musicians in concerts, with terms aligned to the underlying work's duration. This bolsters commercialization in performance-heavy sectors like and by allowing performers to negotiate shares in licensing revenues, though enforcement challenges persist due to widespread digital infringement. Overall, these rights underpin a framework for market-driven value extraction, though empirical studies indicate that weak enforcement reduces realized economic benefits by up to 40% in .

Moral Rights and Ownership Transfer

Under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, authors possess that remain inalienable and independent of economic rights, even after assignment or transfer of copyright. These include the right of paternity, allowing the author to claim authorship of the work, and the right of integrity, enabling restraint against any distortion, mutilation, or modification that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation. Courts have interpreted these rights broadly, encompassing and withdrawal rights in certain cases, though has emphasized protection against commercial exploitation that harms the author's personal link to the work. Unlike economic rights, moral rights cannot be waived or transferred, as affirmed in judicial rulings holding that contractual disclaimers do not override statutory protections. Ownership of copyright initially vests with the under Section 17, establishing the creator as the first owner for literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, unless exceptions apply. Key exceptions include works created in the course of employment, where the employer becomes the first owner absent contrary agreement, as per Section 17(c); government works under Section 17(b); and works by public undertakings. For cinematograph films, the producer is typically the first owner, though underlying s like scriptwriters retain . This framework prioritizes authorial default while accommodating employer interests in commissioned creations, reflecting a balance between individual creation and institutional production. Transfer of ownership occurs via assignment under Section 18, where the copyright owner may wholly or partially assign rights in existing or future works, specifying scope, duration, territory, and royalties. Section 19 mandates that assignments be in writing, signed by the assignor or agent, and include dispute resolution modes, with unregistered assignments deemed invalid against third parties after 2012 amendments. Licenses, governed similarly under Sections 18 and 19, grant permission for specific uses without full transfer, requiring comparable formalities to ensure enforceability. However, compulsory licensing under Section 31 allows the Appellate Board (now High Court post-2012) to grant licenses for unpublished works or those withheld from the public after five years, upon application showing public interest; critics argue this mechanism, by overriding owner consent on fixed terms, can erode incentives for creation and favor access over proprietary control, as seen in low royalty rates for broadcasting that undervalue rights holders. In practice, enforcement of moral rights in India, amid a predominantly collectivist cultural emphasis on communal harmony over individual assertion, has been sporadic, with courts prioritizing economic disputes while moral claims often yield to broader societal or commercial considerations.

Duration of Protection

Standard Terms for Different Works

Under the Copyright Act, 1957, as amended, the standard duration for literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works—excluding photographs—subsists for the lifetime of the plus 60 years from the beginning of the following the 's death, as stipulated in Section 22. This term reflects individual authorship, where the creator's personal contribution defines and length, incentivizing original expression by balancing creator with eventual public access. Photographs, classified as artistic works under Section 2(c), receive a distinct term of 60 years from the date of , per Section 25, due to their technical production process often involving corporate or commissioned efforts rather than sole individual authorship. films, defined in Section 2(f), and sound recordings, under Section 2(xx), both carry a period of 60 years from publication, as outlined in Sections 26 and 27 respectively. These categories emphasize producer or corporate ownership—typically the film producer or recording company as first owner under Section 17—shifting from personal life-based terms to publication-based ones to accommodate collaborative, investment-heavy production models where individual "authorship" is diffused among contributors. This framework aligns with minima (lifetime plus 50 years for literary works, 50 years from fixation/publication for films and recordings) but extends to 60 years, a reform via the 1994 and 1999 amendments to harmonize with global norms and foster investment in India's creative sectors, where empirical analyses indicate that terms below this threshold correlate with reduced commercial viability for high-cost productions like films. Such durations prevent underinvestment by ensuring recoupment periods sufficient for market recovery, particularly in sound recordings and films where upfront capital exceeds individual artistic works.

Special Cases and Extensions

In cases of anonymous or pseudonymous literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works, Section 23 of the Copyright Act, 1957, establishes a term of copyright subsisting until the end of the calendar year sixty years from the beginning of the year following first publication. This applies where the author's identity remains undisclosed at publication; disclosure prior to term expiry triggers the standard duration of the author's lifetime plus sixty years from the year following death. Such provisions aim to balance protection for undisclosed creators against eventual public access, though they preclude perpetual anonymity as a means of indefinite extension. Government works, defined under as those where the government is the first owner of , receive protection for sixty years from the beginning of the next following first . This fixed term, shorter than individual author protections, reflects the in timely dissemination of state-produced materials, such as official reports or legislation drafts, while vesting initial ownership with the government. Similar durations apply to works owned by specified international organizations under Section 29, commencing from year. Indian law provides no statutory mechanisms for general term extensions, such as those for wartime disruptions seen in other jurisdictions like the under the of 1998. Absent such provisions, terms adhere strictly to legislative baselines, promoting predictable entry. However, judicial proceedings can indirectly prolong effective exclusivity; disputes over authorship or infringement often result in interim injunctions, delaying unrestricted use until resolution, with average civil copyright case pendency exceeding 1,000 days in high courts as of 2023. These delays, rooted in systemic backlog rather than doctrinal extension, have drawn criticism for undermining statutory intent by extending de facto monopolies without empirical justification for prolonged private control.

International Obligations

Key Treaties and Conventions

India's copyright framework is profoundly influenced by its adherence to the for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, to which it acceded on April 1, 1928. This treaty establishes the principle of national treatment, requiring member states to extend to foreign works the same protection afforded to domestic ones without formal registration requirements, thereby enabling automatic reciprocal protection for Indian creators' works in over 180 Berne member countries. indicates this facilitates export for Indian cultural products, such as films and literature, by reducing barriers to enforcement abroad and promoting revenue from licensing and distribution in reciprocal jurisdictions, though challenges persist due to varying enforcement efficacy across members. Complementing Berne, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), effective for India upon its membership on January 1, 1995, mandates minimum copyright standards, including Berne's protections plus additional requirements for computer programs as literary works and rental rights for certain media. TRIPS enforces compliance through WTO dispute settlement mechanisms, which have compelled amendments to India's Copyright Act, such as the 1999 revisions extending protections to digital formats and enhancing enforcement provisions. For Indian copyright holders, TRIPS yields tangible benefits in export-oriented sectors like software and entertainment, where strengthened international norms correlate with increased and licensing deals, as reciprocal high-standard protections in trading partners bolster bargaining power and reduce dilution of export value. In the digital era, India's accession to the (WCT) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) on September 25, 2018—effective December 25, 2018—integrates protections for online dissemination, distribution rights, and anti-circumvention measures for technological protections, prompting the 2012 Copyright Amendment Act to align domestic law. These treaties extend Berne and TRIPS by addressing phonogram producers' rights against unauthorized duplication and performers' , empirically aiding India's growing digital content exports, including music streaming and software, by harmonizing with global platforms' requirements for cross-border monetization. Additionally, ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty on June 30, 2014—the first such ratification globally—obligates exceptions in Indian law for accessible formats of works for the visually impaired, implemented via the 2012 amendment's Section 52(1)(zb), balancing export incentives with humanitarian access without undermining core protections. Overall, these instruments have empirically driven legal harmonization that enhances Indian creators' global competitiveness, evidenced by rising royalties from international markets post-TRIPS compliance, though domestic enforcement gaps limit full realization of export gains.

Reciprocity for Foreign Works

The of , pursuant to Section 40 of the Copyright Act, 1957, possesses the authority to extend the Act's provisions to foreign works originating from countries that grant reciprocal protection to Indian works, via notifications published in the Official Gazette. This mechanism operationalizes the principle of national treatment, ensuring foreign works receive equivalent safeguards to domestic ones, subject to the extent of protections afforded in the originating jurisdiction. Protection is extended automatically to works from member states of the Berne Convention, to which India acceded in 1995, and under the TRIPS Agreement as a WTO member since 1995, eliminating formalities like registration and applying minimum standards of term and rights. For non-Berne or non-TRIPS countries, reciprocity requires explicit government declaration through orders such as the International Copyright Order, 1999, which lists reciprocating nations; absent such, courts may assess de facto reciprocity on a case-by-case basis to affirm protection. In practice, enforcement of reciprocity faces significant hurdles, including procedural in notifications and jurisdictional complexities with non-compliant nations, which often harbor lax IP regimes and serve as sources of pirated content inflows into . These gaps exacerbate , as unauthorized reproductions from countries without mutual protections—such as certain developing economies with minimal —proliferate via digital channels, undermining the intended reciprocity framework despite legal extensions under Section 40.

Limitations and Exceptions

The Fair Dealing Framework

The fair dealing exception under Indian copyright law is codified in Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which permits limited use of copyrighted works without constituting infringement, provided the dealing is "fair" and confined to specified purposes. These purposes include private or personal use, including research; criticism or review of the work or another work; and reporting of current events or current affairs, such as lectures delivered in public. Unlike broader exceptions, this framework excludes computer programs from fair dealing under the same clause, reflecting legislative intent to treat software differently due to its commercial nature and potential for verbatim copying. Judicial interpretation of "fairness" remains central, as the Act provides no statutory definition or quantitative limits, leaving courts to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Indian courts have drawn on principles akin to the U.S. four-factor fair use test—purpose and character of the use, nature of the copyrighted work, amount and substantiality of the portion used, and effect on the potential market—despite the doctrinal differences, to assess whether the dealing undermines the copyright holder's interests. In R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978), the Supreme Court established key tests for infringement that inform fair dealing assessments, emphasizing the idea-expression dichotomy and rejecting claims of copying where only general themes or non-substantial elements are shared, without reproducing the "pith and substance" of the original work. The ruling clarified that trivial similarities or independent creation do not trigger infringement, influencing subsequent fair dealing analyses by prioritizing qualitative substantiality over mere quantity. This enumerated approach, however, introduces rigidity relative to the open-ended U.S. doctrine under 17 U.S.C. § 107, which applies the four factors flexibly across any purpose without predefined categories. Critics argue that India's purpose-specific limits constrain adaptability to emerging contexts like or transformative uses beyond and reporting, potentially hindering by requiring strict alignment with statutory lists rather than holistic fairness evaluation. While providing through bright-line rules, this structure has prompted calls for reform, as judicial expansions via borrowed factors cannot fully override the legislative boundaries, leading to narrower exceptions in practice compared to jurisdictions with permissive standards.

Specific Statutory Carve-Outs

The Indian Act, 1957, enumerates specific exceptions to infringement under Section 52(1), distinct from the general provisions, permitting narrow uses such as incidental storage, preservation, and certain educational activities to balance public access with holder rights. These carve-outs are strictly delimited to prevent commercial substitution or widespread dissemination, requiring acts like reproductions to serve non-profit, preservation, or transient purposes without undermining market incentives. For instance, transient or incidental storage of a work or performance is exempted when it occurs solely to provide electronic links, access, or integration, provided the storage is not the primary object and the work is lawfully accessed. Library and archival reproductions are confined to non-profit institutions, allowing up to three copies of a rare or out-of-print book not available for sale or circulation, strictly for preservation or replacement of damaged originals, with no further distribution permitted. Similarly, educational performances of literary, dramatic, or musical works by staff or students within non-profit institutions are exempted if conducted without admission fees exceeding costs and not for profit, ensuring such activities remain internal to the learning process. These provisions empirically limit abuse by tying permissions to verifiable non-commercial intent, as evidenced by their application in cases where unauthorized bulk copying for sale has been deemed infringing. The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, introduced Section 52(1)(zb), carving out exceptions for persons with disabilities by permitting non-profit organizations or agencies to create accessible formats—such as , large print, or audio conversions—from lawfully obtained works, without author permission if no commercial equivalent exists and copies are not sold. This provision, effective from June 21, 2012, requires recipients to be registered with disabilities and mandates destruction of originals post-conversion to curb proliferation, reflecting a targeted response to access barriers while preserving economic rights. Judicial interpretations have reinforced these boundaries, as seen in the 2016 Delhi High Court ruling in University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services, where allowances for educational reproductions were upheld under related provisions but strictly limited to non-substitutive excerpts, rejecting claims of blanket exemptions for entire works to avoid market harm. Subsequent appeals were withdrawn in 2017 following settlement, underscoring the empirical need for case-by-case assessment to prevent educational pretexts from enabling piracy. These limits ensure carve-outs facilitate access without eroding incentives, as broader interpretations risk incentivizing unauthorized copying over licensed alternatives.

Infringement and Enforcement

Defining Infringement

Copyright infringement in India is defined under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which deems copyright infringed when a person, without a license from the owner or the Registrar of Copyrights, performs any act reserved exclusively to the copyright owner, such as , issuance of copies to the , , or communication to the of the work. This primary infringement applies to the whole or a substantial part of the work and excludes acts qualifying as under Section 52. Secondary infringement occurs under Section 51(b) when a person sells, lets for hire, distributes, imports, or exhibits for trade purposes an infringing copy, or possesses such copies with intent to commit these acts, provided the actions prejudice the owner. Examples include the unauthorized cracking of software, which involves reproducing protected code without permission, constituting primary infringement of copyrights under Section 14(b). Similarly, bootlegging films entails the reproduction and public distribution of unauthorized copies, violating exclusive rights in films as secondary acts when copies are sold or exhibited commercially. To establish infringement, the must prove ownership of the and that the 's actions involve copying a substantial part of the original work, often assessed through tests of idea-expression dichotomy and qualitative similarity rather than mere quantitative overlap, as articulated in landmark cases like R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films. The burden remains on the throughout, requiring of access to the original and of protected elements, without presumptions shifting to the absent specific statutory reversal.

Available Remedies

Civil remedies for copyright infringement in India are primarily governed by Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which entitles the copyright owner to seek injunctive relief, , or an account of profits from the infringer. In cases of knowing or flagrant infringement, courts may award compensatory to cover actual losses suffered by the owner, including lost licensing fees, or additional reflecting the infringer's profits attributable to the violation. For innocent infringement, where the proves lack of or reasonable grounds for in non-infringement, remedies are limited to injunctions and accounts of profits, excluding . These provisions aim to deter infringement by enabling recovery that aligns with economic harm or . In civil proceedings, courts may also grant Anton Piller orders, ex parte injunctions permitting the , supervised by court officers, to enter the 's premises, search for and seize infringing materials or evidence to prevent spoliation. Originating from English and adopted in Indian for disputes, including cases involving piracy, these orders require a strong case, potential for evidence destruction, and minimal harm to the relative to the . They serve as a preemptive tool to preserve proof for trial while balancing proprietary rights against potential overreach. Criminal sanctions under Sections 63 and 63A provide further deterrence, treating knowing infringement or abetment as a cognizable and non-bailable punishable by imprisonment for a minimum of six months, extendable to three years, alongside a fine ranging from ₹50,000 to ₹200,000. For second or subsequent convictions, penalties escalate to imprisonment from one to three years and fines from ₹100,000 to ₹200,000, emphasizing recidivism's gravity. These measures, upheld by the as serious offences warranting stringent application, underscore the Act's dual civil-criminal framework to protect creators through both restitution and penal consequences.

Enforcement Challenges and Piracy

Enforcement of in faces significant systemic barriers, including limited resources for specialized IP units and inefficiencies in judicial processes, contributing to persistent high levels of infringement. The U.S. Trade Representative has repeatedly identified as one of the most challenging major economies for IP protection due to inadequate enforcement mechanisms, with high rates of undermining legal markets. These challenges manifest in under-resourced police IP cells, which struggle with technical expertise and coordination, allowing networks to operate with relative impunity. Piracy rates remain alarmingly high, particularly in the media and entertainment sector, where illicit distribution acts as a direct diversion of revenue from creators, akin to theft by eroding the economic returns intended to incentivize production. In 2023, India's M&E industry incurred losses of INR 224 billion from piracy, equivalent to a substantial portion of legitimate revenues, with streaming platforms and theatrical releases most affected. Video content piracy alone engaged approximately 90 million users in 2024, resulting in US$1.2 billion in lost revenue, representing 10% of the digital video sector's output. Prior to widespread streaming adoption, physical and early digital film piracy exceeded 70% market penetration in some estimates, severely impacting box office earnings and ancillary markets like music and publishing. Judicial tools like John Doe orders and site-blocking under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, aim to curb online dissemination but suffer from practical limitations that diminish their deterrent effect. John Doe injunctions, while enabling preemptive action against unidentified infringers, are frequently issued overbroadly, leading to blanket website blocks that inadvertently affect non-infringing content and fail to address mirrored or dynamically generated pirate sites. Site-blocking orders, though dynamic in some cases, prove ineffective against agile operators who rapidly relocate content, as enforcement relies on reactive ISP compliance without proactive technological countermeasures. These mechanisms highlight a causal gap between legal intent and real-world outcomes, where low conviction rates and delayed proceedings further embolden pirates. Border exacerbates vulnerabilities, with customs procedures under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported ) Enforcement Rules, 2007, primarily targeting trademarks and counterfeits while offering limited proactive measures for copyrighted materials like optical media or hardware-embedded infringements. Weaknesses in pre-shipment screening and inter-agency coordination allow pirated to flood domestic markets, compounding losses estimated in billions annually across sectors. Overall, these enforcement shortfalls not only quantify as direct revenue theft—projected to reach $2.4 billion in the video sector by 2029 absent interventions—but also stifle job creation, with linked to forgone in .

Economic and Cultural Impacts

Incentives for Innovation and Industry Growth

Copyright protection under Indian law grants exclusive rights to creators, enabling them to monetize works through licensing, distribution, and exports, which in turn incentivizes investment in original content and technological development. In the Bollywood film sector, these rights have supported the expansion of global markets by allowing producers to license audiovisual content to international platforms and broadcasters, with exports growing alongside infrastructure improvements like multiplex theaters that enhanced legitimate revenue models. This framework has encouraged higher-budget productions and innovation in storytelling, as filmmakers recoup costs via controlled dissemination rather than relying solely on domestic box office. The 1994 amendment to the Copyright Act, which incorporated computer-generated works and aligned protections with the , provided legal safeguards for software code as literary works, fostering industry confidence and growth. This reform contributed to the rapid scaling of India's IT services sector, with software exports surging from approximately $0.22 billion in 1990-91 to substantial annual figures exceeding $100 billion by the mid-2010s, as stronger IP regimes attracted multinational contracts and domestic R&D investments. Licensing revenues further exemplify these incentives, as seen in the music subsector where royalties distributed reached over in 2023-24, reflecting broader patterns in copyright-intensive industries where exclusive rights enable scalable income from derivatives like soundtracks in films. Overall, these protections have sustained job creation, with the film, television, and online video segments alone supporting 2.64 million direct and indirect positions in 2025, amplifying economic activity through creative output multipliers.

Losses from Non-Enforcement and Piracy

Non-enforcement of copyright provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957, facilitates rampant , resulting in direct revenue deprivation for rights holders and broader economic distortions. In 2023, the Indian media and industry suffered estimated losses of ₹22,400 (approximately $2.7 billion) from , with ₹13,700 attributed to theatrical releases and ₹8,700 to over-the-top (OTT) streaming platforms. This uncompensated expropriation of creative works—through unauthorized , streaming, and distribution—diverts funds that would otherwise support production, , and artist compensation, thereby diminishing incentives for new content . These losses extend beyond immediate revenue, encompassing foregone employment and fiscal contributions. An analysis estimated that piracy in India's entertainment sector leads to over 820,000 lost jobs annually, alongside revenue shortfalls equivalent to $4 billion, reflecting the cascading effects on ancillary industries like distribution and . Additionally, piracy contributed to potential government revenue shortfalls, including up to ₹4,300 in goods and services tax (GST), as legitimate transactions are supplanted by illicit ones. In the software domain, weak enforcement sustains high rates of unlicensed use, reported at 58% of installed software in 2023 by the Business Software Alliance (BSA). This pervasive infringement reduces domestic investment in technology development and deters (FDI) in software-related sectors, as firms perceive heightened risks of theft without robust legal safeguards. Overall, such non-enforcement perpetuates a cycle where creators and innovators face disincentives, stunting sector growth and innovation reliant on exclusive rights.

Controversies and Debates

Fair Dealing Limitations vs. Fair Use Models

India's copyright regime employs a framework under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which permits limited uses of copyrighted works without permission but confines exceptions to an exhaustive list of purposes, including private or personal use, research, criticism, review, and reporting of current events. This closed-list approach contrasts sharply with the ' fair use doctrine under 17 U.S.C. § 107, which applies an open-ended, case-by-case evaluation based on four non-exclusive factors: the purpose and character of the use (e.g., commercial vs. transformative), the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and on the potential market for the original. The U.S. model affords greater judicial flexibility, accommodating evolving technologies and cultural practices like or , whereas India's system prioritizes predictability and statutory boundaries to safeguard creators' economic rights. Indian courts have occasionally expanded fair dealing's scope through interpretive rulings, drawing on fair use-like criteria to assess fairness within the permitted purposes. In Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma (1996), the Kerala High Court evaluated a counter-drama critiquing an original play by considering the quantity of material borrowed, its qualitative substantiality, and the impact on the original's market value—mirroring U.S. factors—ultimately deeming the use fair dealing for criticism. The 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act further broadened exceptions, such as allowing educational institutions to use works for instruction without licenses under certain conditions, yet retained the enumerated limits. However, post-2012 jurisprudence has often reined in expansive claims, particularly in digital contexts; for instance, 2025 disputes involving news agency ANI's copyright strikes against YouTubers using short clips for commentary underscored that even uses aligned with criticism or reporting fail fair dealing if they substantially reproduce core elements or substitute for the original, prioritizing market harm to rights holders. The doctrinal debate centers on whether India's restrictive fair dealing unduly hampers , , and cultural compared to 's adaptability, or whether the latter's openness erodes incentives for creation by risking uncompensated exploitation. Advocates for adopting a model contend it would spur by enabling transformative works, citing U.S. evidence where supports sectors like search engines and AI . Yet, empirical analyses reveal limited causal evidence that looser exceptions drive measurable gains in overall creative output or ; for example, cross-country studies of copyright regimes show that while correlates with certain tech advancements, it does not demonstrably outperform stricter systems in fostering broad , particularly when gaps amplify free-riding. In , broadening toward -like flexibility could exacerbate creator undercompensation, as weak already undermines licensing revenues, potentially discouraging investment in original content amid rising digital —evident in film and music industries where unremunerated uses market value without proportional public benefits. Narrow exceptions, by contrast, reinforce property rights as foundational incentives, though they necessitate targeted expansions (e.g., via compulsory licenses) to balance access without diluting core protections.

Digital Reproduction and Access Conflicts

Section 52(1)(b) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, exempts transient or incidental storage of a work or performance occurring purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public, enabling lawful digital reproductions such as temporary caching in licensed streaming services. This provision, introduced via the 2012 amendments, supports over-the-top (OTT) platforms like and by permitting ephemeral copies necessary for buffering and delivery, provided they lack independent economic significance and are deleted post-transmission. However, conflicts arise when unauthorized platforms exploit similar technical processes for persistent or non-transient reproductions, blurring lines between permitted access and infringement in India's burgeoning ecosystem. Piracy via rogue websites and apps undermines OTT licensing models, where content owners negotiate exclusive rights for territorial streaming . Illegal sites often mirror licensed services by hosting full episodes or without remuneration, displacing subscriptions and ad ; for instance, in 2023, India's piracy economy reached INR 224 billion, equivalent to 20-30% of the media and entertainment sector's legitimate output, with and OTT content comprising the bulk of losses. Studies quantify displacement effects, estimating 63,123 lost movie sales and Rs 12 billion in foregone from digital alone in 2019, as pirated copies substitute rather than complement legal consumption among price-sensitive users. Courts have reinforced this by granting dynamic injunctions against such sites, as in Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Multiple Rogue Websites (2020), where the blocked 67 platforms for streaming IPL matches, prioritizing copyright holders' economic rights over unauthorized "access" claims. Defenses invoking —such as affordable access in a diverse, low-income market—have been consistently rejected when they enable systemic erosion, with judicial emphasis on causal links between infringement and industry harm. In the blocking order (, 2019), publishers successfully argued that wholesale digital reproduction of paywalled journals displaced licensing fees without qualifying under fair dealing's research exceptions, as the platform's scale caused verifiable economic detriment exceeding any societal benefit. Similarly, UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.To (2019) saw the court dismiss "free culture" rationales for torrent sites, noting piracy's role in job losses (estimated at 820,000 annually across ) and reduced incentives for content investment, without deference to unproven access gains. These rulings underscore that Section 52(1)(b)'s narrow scope does not immunize persistent digital copies, compelling OTT firms to pursue vigilant enforcement amid fragmented licensing and cross-border hosting challenges.

AI, Technology, and Emerging Rights Issues

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, contains no explicit provisions addressing (AI), leaving generative AI models' use of copyrighted materials in a legal grey area. Training such models on datasets incorporating protected works without permission is generally viewed as potential infringement, as the Act's exceptions under Section 52 are narrowly construed for purposes like research or criticism, excluding broad text and (TDM) activities common in AI development. Unlike the European Union's TDM exception or the ' fair use doctrine, India's framework offers no dedicated carve-out for non-commercial or commercial AI training, prompting concerns that scraping copyrighted content undermines creators' exclusive reproduction rights. Ownership of AI-generated outputs remains unresolved, with courts and scholars emphasizing the Act's requirement for human authorship under Section 2(d), rendering purely machine-created works ineligible for protection. In cases where human input directs AI tools, copyright may vest in the user if sufficient originality and skill are demonstrated, but outputs mimicking training data styles raise infringement risks. This human-centric approach, rooted in the Act's pre-AI origins, has fueled debates: proponents of reform argue it preserves incentives for human creativity by treating training data as foundational warranting licensing mandates, while critics contend the absence of flexibility hampers in a sector projected to contribute significantly to India's GDP. Jurisprudence is evolving through landmark litigation, notably the 2024 suit by (ANI) against , alleging unauthorized ingestion of its copyrighted news articles for training, which could set precedents on transient copying and output liability. has countered that no training occurred on Indian servers, invoking jurisdictional limits, but the case underscores infringement risks absent explicit defenses. In May 2025, the government formed an expert panel to assess whether the Act suffices for AI disputes, amid lobbying from film industries for mandatory content licensing in training datasets to safeguard economic value. Proposed amendments include distinguishing AI-assisted from AI-generated works and introducing protections, balancing enforcement against innovation stifling critiques from tech advocates who favor TDM exceptions to avoid overregulation.

Recent Developments

Post-2012 Amendments and Digital Adjustments

The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, enacted on June 21, 2012, introduced provisions to align Indian law with the and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, extending protections to digital transmissions such as webcasting. organizations gained exclusive rights to communicate works to the , encompassing retransmissions and internet-based webcasting, with statutory licensing mechanisms to facilitate while curbing unauthorized online dissemination. These changes aimed to safeguard performers' and broadcasters' interests in the digital realm, where pre-amendment gaps had left streaming unprotected under existing broadcast definitions. Section 31C diluted prior flexibilities for cover versions by permitting sound recordings of altered versions only after five years from the original's first recording, subject to stringent conditions including unaltered , fifteen days' prior to copyright societies, fixed royalty rates determined by the Commercial Court, and prohibitions on mimicking original titles, artwork, or promotional depictions. This framework sought to balance access for secondary creators with original rights holders' commercial interests, though it imposed more procedural hurdles than earlier practices, reflecting industry pressures to prevent low-cost dilutions eroding value. To combat digital , sections 65A and 65B criminalized circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs) with up to two years' and fines up to ₹200,000, alongside penalties for altering rights management information (RMI). These measures targeted unauthorized copying and distribution in environments, yet critiques from legal analyses highlight persistent gaps, including inadequate ISP liability, delayed processes (often weeks for mobile apps), and jurisdictional hurdles in cross-border , rendering infringement a low-risk activity despite the amendments. Post-2012 implementation saw copyright registrations average approximately 15,000 annually from 2012 to 2018, with e-registrations tripling from 2016 onward due to streamlined digital processes, indicating heightened awareness and utilization. However, enforcement lagged, as evidenced by ongoing high rates in media sectors, where statutory tools failed to deter widespread unauthorized streaming and downloads, underscoring partial digital adaptations amid systemic judicial and infrastructural delays. In June 2025, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued a draft notification for the (Amendment) Rules, 2025, proposing the insertion of Rule 83(A) to mandate exclusive online payment mechanisms for licence fees related to literary works, musical works, and sound recordings. Under this proposed rule, copyright owners or licensors must establish and maintain digital systems for collecting such fees, prohibiting any alternative payment methods, with the explicit aim of streamlining royalty disbursements amid growing digital exploitation of works communicated to the public. The draft limits the online payment requirement to licences issued for public communication of these specific work categories, leaving other copyright transactions unaffected and potentially creating inconsistencies in enforcement. Stakeholders, including industry bodies and legal experts, were solicited for feedback until July 4, 2025, highlighting concerns over implementation feasibility for smaller rights holders lacking robust digital infrastructure and the absence of transitional provisions for legacy systems. These procedural adjustments seek to reduce administrative delays and enhance transparency in fee collections, aligning with broader government efforts, but they constitute narrow efficiency measures without substantive reforms to combat pervasive , strengthen enforcement, or clarify rights in AI-driven content generation and training. As of October 2025, the rules remain in draft form, pending final notification, underscoring a cautious, incremental approach that prioritizes payment modernization over comprehensive statutory overhauls needed for India's evolving .

Ongoing Judicial and Policy Evolutions

In 2025, the continued adjudicating Asian News International (ANI) v. OpenAI, India's landmark case on generative AI's use of copyrighted materials for data, filed in 2024, which examines whether scraping news content without permission constitutes infringement under Sections 14 and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The suit, the first major Global South test of unauthorized AI , balances creator against technological advancement, with no final ruling as of October 2025, potentially influencing text-and-data (TDM) exceptions absent in Indian law. Policy responses have accelerated, including a May 2025 expert panel formed by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to assess copyright adequacy for AI disputes, amid calls for reforms aligning with initiatives to modernize enforcement against digital piracy while fostering innovation. This panel addresses gaps in provisions (Section 52), which courts have interpreted narrowly for AI contexts, rejecting broad analogies from U.S. precedents. Judicial enforcement evolved with site-blocking orders, such as the August 2025 directive against and Sci-Net for systemic copyright violations of academic works, invoking intermediary liability under the , to curb unauthorized digital access. Content identification disputes intensified, as seen in ANI's copyright strikes against YouTubers for claims on news clips, prompting debates on proportional remedies and evolving Section 52 limits to prevent overreach in algorithmic moderation. These developments signal courts' pragmatic adaptation to digital realities, prioritizing empirical infringement evidence over rigid statutory stasis, though critics note persistent doctrinal lags in accommodating AI-driven content economies.

References

  1. https://copyright.gov.in/documents/handbook.html
  2. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/22949
  3. https://copyright.gov.in/frmfaq.aspx
  4. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1710417
  5. https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/The_Copyright_Act__1914.pdf
  6. https://copyright.gov.in/
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296930462_The_imperial_Copyright_Act_1911_and_the_Indian_copyright_law
  8. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/46/enacted
  9. https://dlnluassam.ndl.gov.in/bitstreams/6bcd621a-1e78-422a-aaec-7d9ab6980994/download
  10. https://iiprd.wordpress.com/2020/08/22/historical-development-of-law-of-copyright/
  11. https://www.worldwidejournals.com/paripex/recent_issues_pdf/2016/November/history-and-evolution-of-copyright-in-india_November_2016_8201054601_2910081.pdf
  12. https://architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-166164
  13. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/brief-history-evolution-development-copyright-law-india-gr
  14. https://hsipservices.com/the-copyright-act/
  15. https://copyright.gov.in/documents/copyrightrules1957.pdf
  16. https://www.oxyzo.in/blogs/copyright-act-of-india-1957-a-comprehensive-guide/104899
  17. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1404402/
  18. https://blog.ipleaders.in/an-overview-of-the-copyright-act-1957/
  19. https://bytescare.com/blog/objectives-of-copyright-act-1957
  20. https://www.registerkaro.in/post/international-copyright-indian-perspective
  21. https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/Notification/Copyright_Amendment_1994.pdf
  22. https://thelegalschool.in/blog/software-protection-under-copyright-law
  23. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/2395
  24. http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/01/22/development-in-indian-ip-law-the-copyright-amendment-act-2012/
  25. https://infojustice.org/archives/26243
  26. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_9_30_00006_195714_1517807321712&orderno=14
  27. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_9_30_00006_195714_1517807321712&sectionId=15178&sectionno=52&orderno=52
  28. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_9_30_00006_195714_1517807321712&sectionId=15177&sectionno=13&orderno=13
  29. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_9_30_00006_195714_1517807321712&sectionId=15179&sectionno=16&orderno=16
  30. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/copyright-laws-and-regulations/india
  31. https://blog.ipleaders.in/difference-between-copyright-and-trademark/
  32. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_9_30_00006_195714_1517807321712&orderno=13
  33. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6d6398df-983f-48c7-82ea-799e30ccc0ed
  34. https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/949696/softwares-copyrightable-under-the-indian-copy-right-act
  35. https://thelegalschool.in/blog/what-is-covered-by-copyright-law
  36. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_9_30_00006_195714_1517807321712&orderno=52
  37. https://www.indiafilings.com/learn/what-are-the-different-types-of-work-under-copyright-section/
  38. https://eacpm.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Documenting-Traditional-Knowledge-2.pdf
  39. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b706ddc2-cce5-4c0a-a1a8-ddb62c9f70c0
  40. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1710491/
  41. https://ssrana.in/articles/protection-moral-right-author/
  42. https://naiknaik.com/2023/12/04/what-are-moral-rights-under-copyright-law/
  43. https://www.ipandlegalfilings.com/permissibility-of-a-waiver-of-moral-rights-of-an-author-under-the-copyright-regime/
  44. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/CprAct.pdf
  45. https://amlegals.com/doctrine-of-work-for-hire-under-the-copyright-law/
  46. https://www.algindia.com/article-does-any-copyright-vest-with-the-director-of-a-film/
  47. https://depenning.com/blog/assignment-of-copyright/
  48. https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/854828/assignment-and-licensing-of-copyright
  49. https://lawbhoomi.com/assignment-and-licensing-of-copyrights-under-copyrights-act/
  50. https://spicyip.com/2010/08/copyright-band-its-and-public-interest.html
  51. https://cgurval.medium.com/collectivism-vs-individualism-in-india-how-it-shapes-the-culture-f001abdc0108
  52. https://www.copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copyrightrules1957.pdf
  53. https://vidhijudicial.com/sec-22-to-29-chapter-v-%28term-of-copyright%29-the-copyright-act%2C-1957.html
  54. https://www.indianlawyersassociation.com/blog/understanding-the-term-of-copyright-in-india/
  55. https://lawbhoomi.com/duration-of-copyright-in-india/
  56. https://thelegalschool.in/blog/copyright-time-period-in-india
  57. https://copyright.gov.in/Copyright_Act_1957/chapter_v.html
  58. https://or.niscpr.res.in/index.php/JIPR/article/view/9436
  59. https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/public-domain-copyright-india-right-to-know/
  60. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/2/15033.pdf
  61. https://depenning.com/blog/international-copyright-protection-for-indian-creators/
  62. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/trips_agree_e/chapter_18_e.pdf
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262116332_The_Effects_of_the_TRIPS_Agreement_on_International_Protection_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights
  64. https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=180389
  65. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/notifications/details/treaty_wppt_92
  66. https://iprmentlaw.com/update/india-accedes-to-the-wipo-copyright-treaty-and-wipo-performers-and-phonograms-treaty/
  67. https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2014/article_0008.html
  68. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_9_30_00006_195714_1517807321712&orderno=55
  69. https://thelegallock.com/international-copyright/
  70. https://maklaw.in/knowledge/copyright/national-treatment/
  71. https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/688472/enforceability-of-foreign-country-registered-unregistered-copyright
  72. https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/100340/protection-of-foreign-works-in-india
  73. https://ssrana.in/articles/india-enforceability-of-foreign-country-registered-unregistered-copyright/
  74. https://www.studocu.com/in/document/anna-university/labour-law/international-copyright-order/86985780
  75. https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V6ISSUE4/IJRPR43044.pdf
  76. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/copyright-piracy-and-cybercrime-enforcement-challenges-in-india-42977
  77. https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/india-protecting-intellectual-property
  78. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_9_30_00006_195714_1517807321712&sectionId=14572&sectionno=52&orderno=70
  79. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5256&context=faculty_scholarship
  80. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1734007/
  81. https://or.niscpr.res.in/index.php/JIPR/article/download/7528/3573/58657
  82. https://copyright.gov.in/Exceptions.aspx
  83. https://copyright.gov.in/Copyright_Act_1957/chapter_xi.html
  84. https://www.iplink-asia.com/article-detail.php?id=1205
  85. https://selvams.com/blog/disability-exceptions-copyright/
  86. https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/disability-exceptions-in-copyright-legislations
  87. https://spicyip.com/2016/09/du-photocopy-case-a-breakthrough-in-indian-copyright-jurisprudence.html
  88. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_9_30_00006_195714_1517807321712&orderno=69
  89. https://www.proind.in/blog/infringement-of-copyright-under-the-copyright-act-1957/
  90. https://cleartax.in/s/copyright-infringement
  91. https://www.casemine.com/search/in/burden%252Bof%252Bproving%252Binfringement
  92. https://www.lakshmisri.com/Media/Uploads/Documents/WHITE_PAPER_IP_Infringement_Analysis_Esheeta_REVISED.pdf
  93. https://www.tradesafeindia.com/ptc-suppl1-802-sc-supreme-court-of-india-r-g-anand-versus-delux-films-ors/
  94. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_9_30_00006_195714_1517807321712&sectionId=14578&sectionno=55&orderno=76
  95. https://copyright.gov.in/Copyright_Act_1957/chapter_xii.html
  96. https://www.iiprd.com/infringement-of-copyright-and-remedies/
  97. https://blog.ipleaders.in/civil-remedies-copyright-infringement/
  98. https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1383284/an-overview-of-the-copyright-act-1957
  99. https://www.psalegal.com/issue-xxi-anton-piller-and-implementation-against-software-piracy/
  100. https://asiaiplaw.com/sector/copyright/tracking-injunction-remedies-in-intellectual-property-violations
  101. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_9_30_00006_195714_1517807321712&sectionId=14586&sectionno=63&orderno=84
  102. https://ssrana.in/articles/supreme-court-offence-section-63-of-copyright-act/
  103. https://ssrana.in/articles/offences-section-63-copyright-act/
  104. https://natlawreview.com/article/offences-under-copyright-act-are-cognizable-and-non-bailable-supreme-court-confirms
  105. https://www.ey.com/en_in/newsroom/2024/10/inr-224-billion-lost-annually-to-piracy-majority-call-for-stricter-enforcement-ey-iamai-report
  106. https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-06/the-impact-of-piracy-on-india-s-video-sector-creative-economy_ip-house-x-mpa-x-cii_compressed_0.pdf
  107. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-8102-7_8
  108. https://csipr.nliu.ac.in/copyright/john-doe-orders-and-website-blocking-orders-in-india-an-overboard-exercise-by-the-courts/
  109. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4564448
  110. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f7328da7-f869-4727-9a12-c597cbb3d35c
  111. https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~rtelang/IEP_bollywood.pdf
  112. https://www.ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT24A4215.pdf
  113. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5223758_Indian_Software_Industry_Growth_Patterns_Constraints_and_Government_Initiatives
  114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1925209924003814
  115. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/indian-music-industry-sees-record-royalty-distribution-of-600-cr/articleshow/120651817.cms
  116. https://www.onmanorama.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/2025/05/03/film-tv-online-industries-see-boom-supports-over-two-million-jobs-report.html
  117. https://m.economictimes.com/industry/media/entertainment/indian-entertainment-industry-lost-rs-22400-cr-to-piracy-in-2023-ey-iamai-report/articleshow/114503950.cms
  118. https://www.financialexpress.com/business/brandwagon-indias-piracy-economy-hits-rs-224-billion-with-62-calling-for-stricter-enforcement-reveals-report-3647771/
  119. https://www.bsa.org/news-events/news/use-of-unlicensed-software-at-58-percent-in-india-new-bsa-survey-finds
  120. https://or.niscpr.res.in/index.php/JIPR/article/view/7528
  121. https://bytescare.com/blog/fair-use-copyright-india-vs-us
  122. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e66b08607dba6b534374a3
  123. https://www.medianama.com/2025/05/223-ani-copyright-strikes-youtubers-fair-use/
  124. https://btlj.org/data/articles2015/vol23/23_2/23-berkeley-tech-l-j-0829-0866.pdf
  125. https://ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/The-Economic-Importance-of-Fair-Use-for-Development-of-Generative-Artificial-Intelligence_report.pdf
  126. https://www.iiprd.com/ai-and-fair-use-navigating-legal-challenges-in-india-and-the-united-states/
  127. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3766136_code4548453.pdf?abstractid=3766136&mirid=1
  128. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jwip.12190
  129. https://www.iiprd.com/digital-piracy-and-copyright-infringement/
  130. https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1072290/copyright-infringement-vs-public-access-to-knowledge-the-scihub-case
  131. https://producersguildindia.com/Pdf/Ernst&Young_USIBC%2520Piracy%2520Study_March%252027.pdf
  132. https://ssrana.in/articles/ott-platforms-legal-route-against-copy-pirates/
  133. https://www.maheshwariandco.com/blog/ai-copyright-law-india/
  134. https://lawschoolpolicyreview.com/2025/08/08/training-ai-testing-law-indias-copyright-challenge-with-tdm/
  135. https://www.saikrishnaassociates.com/indian-copyright-law-and-generative-ai/
  136. https://www.iam-media.com/guide/india-managing-the-ip-lifecycle/2025/article/the-impact-of-generative-ai-copyright-indian-jurisprudence-evolves
  137. https://www.ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/THE-IMPACT-OF-GENERATIVE-AI-ON-COPYRIGHT-LAW-IN-INDIA-WHO-OWNS-AI-CREATED-WORKS.pdf
  138. https://www.managingip.com/article/2f3huy6goqztxnabhdvy8/sponsored-content/ani-v-openai-generative-ais-use-of-copyrighted-works-under-indian-law
  139. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/india-panel-review-copyright-law-amid-legal-challenges-openai-2025-05-06/
  140. https://asiaiplaw.com/article/openai-no-ai-training-in-india-no-copyright-infringement
  141. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/13230
  142. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1997830
  143. https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/copyright-amendment-bill-2012-entertainment-industry-impact/
  144. https://copyright.lawmatters.in/2012/06/impact-of-2012-amendments-to-copyright.html
  145. https://www.managingip.com/article/2a5bqo2drurt0bx71xteu/the-impact-of-indias-copyright-amendment-act
  146. https://www.lawjournal.info/article/176/5-1-27-145.pdf
  147. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11543&context=libphilprac
  148. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353839489_The_copyright_trends_in_India_and_the_level_of_copyright_awareness_among_academic_Librarians
  149. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391638887_Protecting_creative_rights_Addressing_digital_piracy_and_copyright_issues_in_Indian_media_Sadhana_GS
  150. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b0d17396-ca13-4279-b7c7-846c3b2ac48b
  151. https://spicyip.com/2025/06/ministry-of-commerce-proposes-mandatory-online-payment-of-license-fees.html
  152. https://www.khaitanco.com/thought-leadership/DPIIT-notifies-draft-Copyright-Amendment-Rules-and-mandates-online-payment-of-License-Fees
  153. https://www.medianama.com/2025/06/223-draft-copyright-amendment-rules-2025-digital-payments/
  154. https://ficpi.org/ip-news/amendments-indian-copyright-rules-proposed
  155. https://www.tbalaw.in/ip-updates/digital-horizon-for-royalties%253A-india%27s-draft-copyright-%28amendment%29-rules%252C-2025
  156. https://www.algindia.com/centre-proposes-amendment-in-copyright-rules-to-ease-digital-payments/
  157. https://cepa.org/article/the-global-south-ai-copyrights-test-case-india/
  158. https://www.juscorpus.com/digital-india-outdated-laws-the-urgent-case-for-copyright-reform/
  159. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/does-human-learning-equal-machine-learning-high-court-of-delhi-to-rule-on-lawfulness-of-tdm-for-machine-learning/
  160. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kanhaiya-singhal-a3619b19_intellectualproperty-copyrightlaw-scientificresearch-activity-7365689626495234050-VBD_
  161. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5367971
  162. https://thelegalquorum.com/copyright-infringement-in-the-digital-age-indias-doctrinal-adjustments-intermediary-duties-and-proportional-remedies/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.