The Copyright Act of 1957 governs copyright in India and provides legal protection to the creators of original works in words, pictures, music and movies. It gives authors and developers exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform or modify their creations for recognition and financial benefits. Automatically, copyright is given to the creators at the creation of a particular work and is not dependent on formal registration. Yet copyright registration becomes prima facie evidence in the lawsuits. The objectives of the Act are to make equilibrium of rights available for the creators as well as access by the public but permit some limited exceptions under the fair use doctrine. Nonetheless, the recent amendment puts Indian copyright law at par with other international treaties like the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement.
What is Fair Use under Copyright Act?
This is indeed a legal principle allowing suitable use to be called as “fair dealing” in the Copyright Act, 1957, stating the use of copyrighted material for certain purposes without obtaining prior permission of the copyright owner. This doctrine derives its might from an exception that has granted limited rights to creators, allowing certain applications of work only when such applications serve the interest of society and the public interest. Section 52 of the Act recognises private research, criticism, reviews, reporting on current events and education activities as purposes. Unlike copyright infringement, fair dealing is provided for such usage that it should not unduly impair the right market or any of the moral rights enjoyed by such creators. It is far narrower compared to the broad “fair use” principle offered under other jurisdictions mainly because it specifically focuses only on specific, authorised reasons. The overall policy in creating this enables creativity, the spread of learning and even advancement of culture, but never at the expense of copyright owner rights.
Section 52 of the Copyright Act of 1957 states those acts that would not be treated as an infringement of copyright and exceptions to the exclusive rights of copyright holders. This section is extremely valuable in harmonising authors’ rights with the public need to access and use copyrighted materials under all possible circumstances. Section 52 deals with the use of copyrighted works – to certain defined purposes, educational, scientific or otherwise private and for public purposes and not for direct or indirect commercial purposes; it permits non-commercial usages to make people easily access information and cultural elements, which will serve much better to the public interest-than it would have done otherwise. Preserving moral rights, also under exceptions, requires credit to the original creators, which safeguards teachers, researchers, journalists and cultural institutions by keeping at bay the disputes regarding litigation and thus enhancing intellectual and cultural development.
Cases of applications of fair use provisions –
- Fair Use – This section allows the use of copyright material for purposes such as research, private study, critique, review and reporting current events. Though it uses works such as literature, drama, music or art and does not seek the creator’s consent for them, it may not be guilty of infringing its use with such intention.
- Rights for the Use in Lawmaking or Legislature – Copyright allows usage of anything that has any form of work such as judicial, legislation, or other administrative aspects that cannot fall prey to violations of copyright.
- For Purpose of Educational or Teaching Uses – Institutions shall be entitled to reproduce or perform works for the purposes of instruction within their institutions and not for any commercial purposes. It would also allow the creation of educational compilations that recognise sources.
- Public Addresses – The reproduction of public speeches, whether political, judicious, or other, is possible in reporting current events, but only with credit to the speaker.
- Libraries and Archives – Non-governmental libraries and archives and governmental institutions are privileged to reproduce the original copyrighted works for preservation and/or research purposes.
- Public Performance of Works within Religions – Copyright will not be violated if a public performance exists within a religious ceremony or institution.
- Fair use of Parody, Satire, and Comment – Derivative works, like parody or satire, can be made under making limited use, provided such use does not make use of the work substantially commercially.
- Reproduction for Persons with Disabilities – Copyright works could be reproduced in formats which would be accessible to a person with a disability such as Braille or sound recording.
Landmark Judgements
Case law, along with some landmark rulings, is important to demarcate the boundaries and implementation of fair use in copyright law. In the Indian context, the judiciary has interpreted ‘fair dealing’ within the ambit of Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, as a means of striking a balance between the rights of copyright owners and the interests of the general public. Some of the important cases have clarified various dimensions including, but not limited to, transformative use, proportionality and the impact on the market for the original work. The judgments provide the prerequisite condition under fair use in terms of its purpose, kind, extent and its impact so as to ensure that an equitable application of the copyright laws is done.
- Shemaroo Entertainment Limited v. News Nation Network Private Limited (2022)
In Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. v. News Nation Network Pvt. Ltd., the Bombay High Court ruled in a copyright infringement dispute. Shemaroo is one of the best-known licensors of its own content. It alleges that News Nation infringed its intellectual property rights after the termination of its nonexclusive license agreement in August 2020.
In defence, News Nation argued that its activities were covered by the fair dealing clause provided in Section 52 of the Copyright Act of 1957. It argued that the usage was for news reporting purposes. It also resorted to the “de minimis” principle, which states that the utilisation was minimal.
However, the Court dismissed such an argument, holding that “use of copyrighted material for a commercial purpose after the expiry of a license cannot be fair dealing.” According to it, “usage here was not de minimis since it was repetitive and of purpose.” Hence, injunctive relief was directed to be issued to the news channel News Nation on account of its unauthorised utilisation of Shemaroo content. This is a prime case with regard to the de minimis and fair dealing limitations under copyright law.
- Tips Industries Limited v. Wink Limited and Anr. (2019)
In 2019, the plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants under the Copyright Act of 1957 for violating copyright and invoking section 31D. Tip Industries Limited is the complainant in the present matter, alleging that Wynk Music uses Tip’s copyrighted material without proper consideration. Wynk responded that it operates under a statutory license, permitting the streaming of copyrighted content upon payment of the requisite royalties.
The Bombay High Court pointed out that Section 31D is meant only for broadcasting traditional methods, including radio and television and does not extend to services streaming over the internet. As Wynk’s operations are not qualified under statutory licensing, the court ruled in favour of Tips Industries, thus disallowing Wynk to stream its content without appropriate licensing agreements. The case restated statutory licensing limitations and underlined the requirement of exclusive licenses for digital platforms as against traditional broadcasting regulations.
- Saregama India Limited and Ors. v. Alkesh Gupta and Ors. (2013)
The plaintiffs had alleged illegal reproduction, distribution and public performance of their musical work by the defendant in violation of their exclusive rights under the Copyright Act 1957. Saregama India claimed to have exclusive rights over the music and reproduced and distributed a song without their permission under the same Act, thereby violating the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs prayed for an injunction against the illness of further unauthorised use of their music and also claimed damages so suffered. They contended that since the song is not copyright protected, they have the right to bring their actions on the grounds of ‘fair use’ provisions in copyright law. The court has very strongly leaned on the protection of the rights of authors of copyright material, most especially in regard to digitalisation and abuse in the consumption of content. This case, therefore, calls for discussion on the rights of copyright holders in any given context through a further illumination of how copyright stands in the present situation while rendering relief for infringement cases under the Copyright Act of 1957.
- Super Cassette Industries v. Chintamani Rao and Ors. (2011)
The plaintiffs had argued that the defendants copied and later went on to distribute their music without appropriate license, thereby infringing on their copyright. The essential question in this case revolved around whether the acts of the defendants were such that they violated the law of copyright by creating and distributing unauthorised copies in sachet form of music. Super Cassette Industries claimed itself to be the registered owner of the song and alleged that the defendants had infringed the exclusive rights owned by them regarding the making and distribution of counterfeit copies thereof. They prayed for an order restraining them from selling counterfeit cassettes and for damages due to financial loss caused by infringement. In their defence, the defendants stated that they were not aware of any such ownership of music by the plaintiffs and that their actions do not amount to infringement of copyright. The High Court of Delhi sided with Super Cassette Industries in ruling that the defendants had actually violated the copyright of the plaintiffs by imitation and illegal dissemination of the audio cassettes. The Court thus issued an injunction barring further illegal distribution to the defendants, with a mandate that they pay the plaintiffs damages. The Court underscored the importance of enforcement of copyright law for creator rights and fighting piracy in the music industry. This case sheds light on the need for copyright protection to vitiate piracy and the illegal reproduction of works, implicating the importance of copyright in defending artists’ and producers’ rights.
Conclusion
Fair use, as envisaged under the Copyright Act of 1957, is a highly significant provision that harmonises the rights of copyright holders with the interests of the public. It permits limited access to copyrighted work for the purposes defined, such as research, criticism and other educational activities, while keeping in view the rights of the authors. Though it is much narrower compared to the other jurisdictions, it still incorporates vital exceptions that stimulate creativity, facilitate information dissemination and promote free expression. The fairness of use is also considered based on relevant factors such as purpose, nature of work, and commercial effects so as to provide a fair and balanced application of copyright law.
Related Services
