This blog is written by Sohini Chakraborty, a 3rd year law student from Amity University, Kolkata.
INTRODUCTION
In India, the protection of intellectual property rights, including copyright, is governed by the Copyright Act of 1957, which was passed into law. The Creators, Authors, and Artists Rights Act establishes the rights of artists, authors, and creators in regard to their unique literary, artistic, and musical works. This Act is crucial because it protects creators’ rights and encourages innovation and cultural enrichment while allowing them to enjoy the results of their labor.
On January 21, 1958, the Copyright Act of 1914 was replaced by the Copyright Act of 1957, which went into effect the next day. This new legislation was necessary to handle the post-independence era’s changing landscape of creative works and bring India’s copyright laws into compliance with international standards. The protection of creators’ rights and the encouragement of creative and literary endeavors are reflected in the Act.
EVOLUTION OF THE ACT
During the colonial era, the Indian Copyright Act of 1914, sometimes known as the first copyright law in India, was introduced. It gave musical, theatrical, and literary works copyright protection. The Act did not, however, include all types of creative expression and had a narrow scope.
India attained independence in 1947, and the earlier 1914 Act was replaced with the 1957 Copyright Act. This was an important turning point since it established the framework for contemporary copyright law in India. The Act broadened the spectrum of works covered by copyright protection to include works of art, music, theater, and literature. Additionally, the idea of copyright registration was developed.
India significantly revised its Copyright Act in the 1980s in response to the new problems that emerging technology had brought forth. Protection for databases and software was one of these modifications. Additionally, the Act established rules for certain works’ mandatory licensing.
To bring the Copyright Act into compliance with global copyright norms, more amendments were made to it in the 1990s. In addition to recognizing the rights of musicians, broadcasters, and sound recording producers, these modifications also extended the duration of copyright protection.
The Copyright Act underwent significant revisions in the 2010s to address concerns about digital technologies and the internet. These modifications included clauses on digital rights management (DRM), internet service providers’ (ISPs’) responsibility for copyright infringement, and the acknowledgment of writers’ moral rights.
In response to its commitments under international agreements like the Berne Convention and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), India’s copyright laws have changed. These agreements have had an impact on India’s efforts to protect intellectual property rights and harmonize copyright regulations.
OBJECTIVE OF THE ACT
With a focus on nurturing innovation, defending the rights of creators, and advancing the spread of knowledge and culture, the Copyright Act of 1957 fulfills a number of significant goals. Providing legal protection to writers and creators of original works is the main goal of the Copyright Act. The exclusivity of the creators’ rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, modify, and make their works available to the public is ensured by this protection. The Act supports the creation of fresh, original works, whether they take the form of writing, music, painting, or other forms of expression, by protecting these rights.
The Act seeks to create a balance between the needs of the public and those of innovators. Even while creators are given exclusive rights to their works, the Act also acknowledges several restrictions and exceptions, such as those for fair use. These clauses ensure that access to information and culture is not unreasonably constrained by allowing the use of copyrighted content for activities like research, criticism, and news reporting. The Supreme Court of India emphasized the objective of copyright law in the significant case of R.G. Anand vs. M/s. Deluxe Films (1978) , which is to find a balance between defending the rights of authors and fostering public access to creative works. The Court emphasized that while fair use must be permitted for reasons like criticism and review, copyright protection is not absolute and must be restricted to foster creation.
Agreements for licensing and distribution are made easier by copyright protection. To guarantee that their works are seen by as many people as possible, authors and copyright holders can enter into agreements with publishers, distributors, and other parties. This promotes the sharing of artistic works and advances cultural diversity.
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
| S. No. | PROVISIONS | BRIEF OF PROVISIONS |
| 1. | Objective | Copyright law has dual objectives. Firstly, it aims to protect the original expressions of writers, songwriters, designers, artists, filmmakers, and others who invest in creating and sharing their works with the public. Secondly, copyright law enables others to build upon the knowledge and ideas conveyed in copyrighted works, fostering creativity and innovation. Additionally, copyright law allows for certain unrestricted uses of copyrighted content, promoting a balance between protecting creators’ rights and encouraging the progress of arts and sciences through shared knowledge. |
| 2. | Section 2 -Interpretation | This section covers different categories of works eligible for copyright protection. For instance, literary works are addressed in Section 2(o), dramatic works are included under Section 2(h), and musical and graphical works are dealt with in Section 2(p).The establishment of a Copyright Office for the purposes of this Act is provided under this section. |
| 3. | Section 13 – Works in which Copyright subsists | This section deals with the subject matter of copyright protection. Like the following classification of work is protected by the copyright- Original artistic, musical, dramatic, and literary works, Sound recording, Cinematograph films. According to this Section following are the subject matter of the copyright-Original Literary Work, Original Dramatic work, Original Musical work, Original Artistic Work, Cinematography films, and Sound recordings. |
| 4. | Section 14 Meaning of Copyright | This section provides the exclusive rights to the owner in case of the original literary, musical, dramatic work, computer program work, artistic work, cinematograph film work, sound recording work. |
5. | Section 17 – First owner of copyright | Section 17 of this Act establishes that the author of a work is generally considered the first owner of the copyright in that work. This means that for different types of works—like literary compositions, musical works, artistic creations, photographs, cinematographic works, and computer-generated works—the respective creators (authors, musicians, artists, etc.) are initially recognized as the copyright holders. However, there are exceptions outlined in the Act that modify this general rule: If a work is created by an author under employment for a newspaper, magazine, or similar publication, the copyright is owned by the proprietor of that publication. If a photograph, painting, portrait, or cinematograph is created for payment, the person who commissioned the work owns the copyright. Works created during employment under a contract belong to the employer. Copyright for speeches or addresses delivered on behalf of another person in public belongs to that person. Government works are owned by the government. Works created under the direction and control of a public undertaking are owned by that undertaking. International organizations specified under Section 41 of the Act may own the copyright for relevant works. |
| 6. | Section 18 – Assignment of copyright | This section provides that the copyright owner can create value not just by using it themselves but also by collaborating with others through assignment and licensing. Only the copyright owner has the authority to transfer their current or future copyrighted work, either completely or partially, to someone else. Through such transfer, the recipient gains all associated rights to the copyrighted work and is treated as the new owner of those rights. |
| 7. | Section 30 -Licences by owners of copyright | This section allows the owner of an existing copyright or the prospective owner of a future copyright to grant licenses for their rights either personally or through an authorized agent in writing. If a license is granted for a future work, it will only become effective once the work is created. If the licensee dies before the work is created and the license does not specify otherwise, their legal representatives are entitled to benefit from the license. This section governs the granting of licenses for both existing and future works under copyright. |
| 8. | Section 37 – Broadcast reproduction right | This section establishes a “broadcast reproduction right” for broadcasting organizations in relation to their broadcasts. This right remains valid for 25 years from the beginning of the year following the broadcast. During this period, unauthorized actions such as re-broadcasting, public transmission for a fee, making recordings of the broadcast, or reproducing such recordings without permission are considered infringements of the broadcast reproduction right, subject to the provisions of section 39. |
| 9. | Section 51 – When copyright infringed | This section defines when copyright infringement occurs: * It is considered infringement when someone, without the copyright owner’s permission or in violation of license conditions, does something that only the copyright owner has the right to do. * It is also infringement when someone commercially engages in activities like making, selling, displaying, distributing, or importing unauthorized copies of a work, which negatively affects the copyright owner. * The import of one copy of a work for private and domestic use is an exception to infringement. * This section also clarifies that reproducing a work as a cinematograph film without permission is considered an infringing copy. |
| 10. | Section 55 – Civil remedies for infringement of copyright | Section 55 of the Act outlines civil remedies available for copyright infringement: The copyright owner, upon infringement of their work, is entitled to various remedies such as injunctions, damages, accounts, and any other relief provided by law. However, if the defendant can prove that they were unaware and had no reasonable grounds to believe that copyright existed in the work at the time of infringement, the plaintiff may only be entitled to an injunction and a decree for a portion of the profits made by the defendant from the infringing copies. In cases involving literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, cinematograph films, or sound recordings, where the name of the author or publisher appears on the published copies, that person is presumed to be the author or publisher unless proven otherwise in infringement proceedings. The court has discretion over the costs of all parties involved in copyright infringement proceedings. |
PENAL PROVISIONS
| 11. | Section 63 – Offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act. | This section outlines penalties for knowingly infringing or aiding in the infringement of copyright or other rights under the Act (excluding rights covered by section 53A). Offenders can face imprisonment for a minimum of six months up to three years, along with a fine ranging from fifty thousand rupees to two lakh rupees. The court has discretion to impose lesser penalties for non- commercial infringements based on specified reasons. Note: Building construction that infringes or would infringe copyright in another work is not considered an offence under this section. |
| 12. | Section 63A – Enhanced penalty on second and subsequent convictions. | This section imposes enhanced penalties on repeat offenders convicted of copyright infringement under Section 63. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, the offender faces imprisonment for a term not less than one year and up to three years, along with a fine ranging from one lakh rupees to two lakh rupees. The court may impose lesser penalties for non- commercial infringements based on specified reasons. This section does not consider convictions made before the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1984. |
| 13. | Section 63B – Knowing use of infringing copy of computer programme to be an offence. | This section stipulates penalties for knowingly using an infringing copy of a computer program on a computer. Offenders face imprisonment for a minimum of seven days up to three years, along with a fine ranging from fifty thousand rupees to two lakh rupees. If the program use was not for gain or business purposes, the court may choose not to impose a prison sentence and instead impose a fine up to fifty thousand rupees based on adequate reasons stated in the judgment. |
| 14. | Section 65 – Possession of plates for purpose of making infringing copies. | This section states that anyone who knowingly makes or possesses a plate intended for producing infringing copies of a copyrighted work can be punished with imprisonment for up to two years and may also be liable to pay a fine. |
| 15. | Section 65A – Protection of technological measures | This section addresses the protection of technological measures used to safeguard copyright rights. It states that circumventing these measures with the intent to infringe copyright is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years and a fine. Exceptions are provided under subsection (2), allowing circumvention for lawful purposes such as encryption research, investigations, security testing with owner authorization, or measures in the interest of national security. Any facilitation of circumvention for lawful purposes requires detailed documentation of the person and purpose involved. |
| 16. | Section 65B – Protection of Rights Management Information | This section stipulates that any person who knowingly removes or alters rights management information without authorization, or distributes, imports for distribution, broadcasts, or communicates copies of a work knowing that electronic rights management information has been tampered with, can be punished with imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. |
| 17. | Section 67 – Penalty for making false entries in register, etc., for producing or tendering false entries. | This section deals with the offense of making false entries or documents related to the Register of Copyrights under this Act. It specifies that anyone who makes a false entry in the register, creates a false document purporting to be a copy of a register entry, or produces such false documents as evidence, knowing them to be false, can be punished with imprisonment for up to one year, or with a fine, or with both. |
| 18. | Section 68 – Penalty for making false statements for the purpose of deceiving or influencing any authority or officer. | This section specifies that any individual who knowingly makes a false statement or representation with the intention of deceiving an authority or officer in the execution of the Act, or with the intent to influence any action or decision related to the Act, can face penalties. The punishment for such actions may include imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both, as determined by the severity of the offense. This provision aims to deter fraudulent behavior and ensure compliance with the Copyright Act’s provisions and procedures. |
| 19. | Section 68 – Penalty for contravention of section 52A | This section specifies that any person who publishes a sound recording or a video film in violation of the provisions of section 52A can be punished with imprisonment for up to three years and is also liable to pay a fine. This provision aims to deter unauthorized publication of sound recordings or video films, emphasizing the importance of adhering to copyright regulations. |
| 20. | Section 69 – Offences by companies | This section holds both a company and its responsible individuals liable for any offence committed under the Copyright Act. If an offence is committed by a company, the individuals in charge of conducting its business at the time of the offence are deemed guilty unless they can prove lack of knowledge or demonstrate due diligence to prevent the offence. Additionally, if an offence is committed with the consent, connivance, or negligence of any director, manager, secretary, or officer of the company, they too are deemed guilty and subject to punishment under the Act. This provision ensures accountability and responsibility for copyright-related offences within companies. |
LANDMARK CASES
- R.G. ANAND V. M/S DELUX FILMS AND OTHERS 1978 4 SCC 118
The Court’s judgment, delivered by Justice Fazal Ali, determined that although both a play and a movie may have been inspired by the concept of “Provincialism,” they are sufficiently distinct from each other. The movie explores additional aspects of “Provincialism,” such as in the leasing of outhouses and the portrayal of dowry evils, which are not depicted in the play. The Court emphasized that copyright protection does not extend to concepts, and cited established legal precedent to support this. Despite some similarities between the play and the movie, the Court concluded that they are not duplicates, and a regular viewer would not perceive them as such. Consequently, the Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision, ruling in favor of the respondents and dismissing the appellants’ claim of copyright violation due to the significant differences between the play and the movie.
- SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. V. MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD. 2012 (50) PTC 225 (SC)
The court directed the Copyright Board to establish an interim fee and clarified that the Board has the jurisdiction to determine both interim and final terms of a compulsory license. Regarding the matter addressed in the Special Leave Petitions, the court decided not to grant a temporary suspension of the Copyright Board’s order.
NEED AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ACT
In order to secure the artists’ intellectual property rights and to promote innovation, creativity, and the spread of information and culture, it is essential to uphold the Copyright Act of 1957. The Copyright Act’s main goal is to defend the legal rights of all types of creators, including writers, musicians, artists, and other types of creative people. It gives individuals the only right to publish, perform, adapt, and reproduce their works, which encourages them to generate and disseminate their works.
It is economically important to protect intellectual property. Through royalties, sales, and licensing, artists can make money off of their creations. As the creative industries expand, which is important for the economy, this helps.
The public’s desire to access and use creative works and the rights of authors are balanced by copyright law. It outlines limitations and exceptions, like as fair use or fair dealing, which permit the use of copyrighted content for activities like criticism, research, and education. Software and other creative works produced in the technology industry are protected by copyright. Incentives for the development of new technologies are provided while the rights of software developers are protected, which encourages innovation.
A framework for enforcing rights and pursuing remedies in cases of infringement is provided by the Copyright Act for owners of copyright. The ability to protect one’s creations is thus guaranteed for creators. The development of the creative industries and the spread of knowledge and culture are facilitated by it because it offers legal protection, financial incentives, and a framework for the ethical use of copyrighted material.
In Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Ltd. and Anr. (2019) after hearing both sides’ arguments, the Bombay High Court rendered a judgment and found that Wynk had violated the copyright on two separate occasions: first, by making the copyrighted work accessible under Section 14(1)(e)(ii), which permitted users to download and subscribe to the plaintiff’s work offline; and second, by making the plaintiff’s works accessible to users via their streaming platform. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that they were qualified for an interim injunction since they had made a compelling argument and would suffer significant financial loss.
CRITICISM AND LIMITATION OF THE ACT
The extensive period of copyright protection has come under fire, especially when it comes to corporate-owned works. The protection of a copyright typically lasts for the author’s lifetime plus an extra 60 years. The extended protection, according to critics, can impede creativity and restrict access to works that would otherwise be in the public domain. Some contend that copyright protection has expanded too much, now encompassing not only conventional creative works but also databases, software, and other forms of content. The free flow of information and ideas may be constrained by this increase of copyright protection.
Critics contend that overzealous copyright enforcement might stifle innovation and creativity. Even when such uses might be viewed as fair or transformative, people and organizations may be discouraged from expanding upon or remixing prior works due to a fear of copyright infringement lawsuits. It has been debatable whether or not to deploy DRM systems to protect digital content. DRM can limit consumers’ freedom to use lawfully purchased content anyway they see appropriate, according to critics, which limits the meaning of “ownership” in the digital era.
Access to scholarly research and educational resources may be hampered by copyright limitations. In the digital age, where access to information is crucial for learning and creativity, critics claim that this can impede the free flow of knowledge and information. Globalization has resulted in significant regional variation in copyright rules, which complicates matters for both creators and consumers. International copyright laws need to be harmonized and simplified, claim critics. Online streaming, digital distribution, and user-generated content platforms, according to critics, are all subject to legal uncertainty since copyright regulations have not kept up with technical development.
CONCLUSION
Finally, it should be noted that the Copyright Act of 1957 is an essential legal framework that promotes the spread of knowledge and culture while also preserving the creators’ intellectual property rights. In order to stimulate creativity, innovation, and the preservation of cultural heritage, it must be able to delicately balance these two goals. This is where its necessity and relevance lie.
By giving creators exclusive rights to their works and encouraging the creation of fresh, diverse content, the Act is essential in defending the rights of creators. By providing financial incentives and guaranteeing that artists can profit from their works, it promotes the development of creative industries, which are crucial to a country’s economy. The Act is not without criticism, though. Discussions regarding the possible stifling of innovation, the limitation of access to knowledge, and the problems faced by the digital era have been sparked by lengthy copyright periods, unduly wide protection, and ambiguities in notions like fair use. These concerns highlight the significance of continuous debates and changes to copyright legislation to reflect the changing nature of creativity and technology.
The Copyright Act of 1957 continues to be a pillar of Indian intellectual property law notwithstanding these difficulties. Its importance stems not only from its function as a legal framework but also from its capacity to promote a thriving creative ecosystem that benefits both creators and society at large. The Act’s flexibility and ongoing relevance will be crucial in preserving this precarious balance between rights and access as the digital age continues to transform how we produce, exchange, and consume content.
