Copyright Infringement in the Indian Entertainment Industry: Key Legal Precedents

The Indian media and entertainment (M&E) industry is one of the biggest across the world (and encompasses several diverse media genres and content produced by regional industries across the country). While the industry has traditionally comprised film and television content production, with growing technological advancement, there is an increasing proliferation of digital content such as OTT (Over-the-Top), online gaming, animation and VFX in the M&E sector. With increasing consumer demand, the proliferation of such digital content in the industry is expected to greatly expand in coming years.

Intellectual property – and in particular copyright protection – has conventionally been a critical prerequisite for stakeholders in the M&E industry. Within the industry, copyright protection in particular plays a crucial role in safeguarding the rights of creators, producers, and other stakeholders in the industry. In India, the Copyright Act, 1957 and rules issued thereunder (“Act”) govern this area, offering legal protection to a wide range of creative outputs, including music, literary, cinematographic and artistic content.

With the rise of digital platforms and increasing globalization, the need for strong copyright enforcement in the digital space has never been more critical. However, the proliferation of new modes and genres of content have created certain legal ambiguity regarding protection of rights of stakeholders. This article analyses key judicial decisions concerning copyright infringement in India, including recent copyright infringement disputes (vis-à-vis digital content) in India.

Overview of Copyright Protection and Infringement

In simple terms, copyright is an exclusive right granted by law to the creator of a creative work (which is effective against any form of copying of such creative work by an unauthorized person). Copyright comes into existence as soon as the (copyrightable) creative work is created. However, the legal registration, regulation and enforcement of copyright in India is governed by the Act. By obtaining legal copyright protection subject to the Act, stakeholders are granted exclusive rights (including moral and economic rights) to their creative works, ensuring that they can control how their content is used, distributed, or monetized.

An important aspect to note, however, is that mere ideas or thoughts per se cannot be subject to copyright. The concept of idea-expression dichotomy (in the context of copyrightable works) has been examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of R.G Anand v Deluxe Films [1978 AIR 1613]. Herein, the Hon’ble Court observed that a mere idea is not eligible for copyright registration, but that the expression of such an idea may be offered protection via copyright laws.

Particularly in the entertainment industry, obtaining statutory protection for creative works is of vital importance for stakeholders (so as to be able to lawfully enforce their rights in cases of copyright infringement). In simple terms, copyright infringement refers to the unauthorized use of a work that is statutorily protected by copyright (such as by substantially plagiarizing or reproducing the work, in whole or part). The use or exploitation of an original work without authorization from the copyright owner infringes upon the owner’s exclusive rights and constitutes a punishable offence under the Act.

In its judgement in the above-mentioned case of R.G Anand v Deluxe Films, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held the principle of substantial similarity to be a key factor in determining whether or not a case of copyright infringement has occurred. Namely, the grievance of the plaintiff (R.G. Anand) in the instant matter concerned the film produced by the defendant (Deluxe Films). Inter-alia the plaintiff alleged that it comprised a substantial copy of the original play written by the plaintiff, and thereby infringed upon the plaintiffs’ copyright thereto. Upon analysing the parties’ submissions, the Hon’ble Court concluded that the plaintiff in this case had not been able to establish material or substantial degree of similarity between its original play and the impugned film and held in favour of the defendant.

The concepts of idea-expression dichotomy and substantial similarity (viz. the test of a reasonable man in determining whether two works are substantially similar) established by the Court in the R.G Anand case remain important concepts in assessing copyright infringement has occurred. The judicial precedent set out in the matter has since been reinforced (and expanded) in a various copyright infringement cases.

Illustratively, in the recent case of Vinay Vats v. Fox Star Studios India Private Limited [AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 1108], the plaintiff (Vinay Vats) alleged that there were substantial similarities between the themes and plot of a film trailer by the defendant (Fox Star Studios), and the script authored by the plaintiff for another (unreleased) film. In its judgement in the matter, the Delhi High Court re-affirmed that there can be no copyright in a mere theme or idea. It opined however that when two creative works share similar ideas or themes, there can be a high likelihood of resemblance in their creative expression. In line with the judgement delivered in R.G Anand case, the High Court held that in order to prove significant similarities between the works, the test of a ‘reasonable man’ must be applied. It broadened the scope of the substantial similarity test and highlighted the importance of considering aspects such as novelty, exclusivity and originality of content in determining existence of copyright infringement. Upon reviewing the works of the plaintiff as well as defendant, the High Court held that the alleged similarity between the themes (since such the themes comprised in the plaintiffs’ work were neither exclusive nor novel).

Emerging Copyright Infringement Issues in the Digital Space

With the advent of new-age technologies and their mainstream usage (such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, Non-Fungible Tokens/NFTs and other virtual digital assets) there has been a shift in the nature copyright infringement issues within the M&E industry in recent years – particularly in relation to personality rights.

In simple terms, personality or publicity rights encompass the right of a person to control the unauthorized. use of their personality attributes (such as name, image, voice, likeness, etc.) and include the right to privacy. While such rights are not codified in the Act, the Act contains legal provisions which are similar to the essence thereof. Illustratively, the Act grants moral rights to the authors of copyrighted works (which enable them to claim ownership/authorship over their works and restrain or claim damages in case of any misuse of their work in a manner which adversely impacts or could impact their reputation). Similarly, the Act grants performers rights of attribution (viz. the rights to be given credit and claim authorship of their performances).

In the M&E industry, such rights grant protection to famous celebrities against the misuse of their personal attributes. Many Indian celebrities have sought legal remedies against misappropriation of their personal attributes such as their name, image, likeness and voice.

Illustratively, in the case of Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors. [CS(COMM) 389/2024], the Delhi High Court restrained the defendants (including social media, e-commerce and AI platforms) from misappropriating and misusing the personality attributes of the Bollywood actor, Jackie Shroff. More recently, in the case of Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP [IPR SUIT (L) NO.23443 OF 2024], the Bombay High Court similarly ruled in favour of the Bollywood singer, Arijit Singh, observing that unauthorized use of his name, voice, and image by the defendants (including AI and voice cloning tools) were are not only unauthorised by the singer, these also violated his personality rights.

Interestingly however, in the case of Digital Collectibles Pte. Ltd. and Others vs Galactus Funware Technology Private Limited and Another [2023 SCC Online Del 2306], the Delhi High Court held that the creation and sale of NFTs by the defendant (Galactus Funware) using the name, likeness, and attributes of the plaintiff cricketers did not violate their personality rights. The High Court opined that there was an element of transformative use and creativity involved in the impugned NFT tokens (since these featured the artwork of the cricketers, as opposed to their actual images). The High Court thereby concluded that the defendants use of the plaintiff cricketers’ artwork/caricatures for ‘the purposes of lampooning, satire, parodies, art, scholarship, music, academics, news and other similar uses’ would not constitute violation of publicity rights.

Conclusion

In light of the above, it is clear that with the proliferation of internet technologies and digital platforms, the scope of copyright infringement has also significantly expanded. The proliferation of new modes and genres of content have created certain ambiguity regarding protection of rights of stakeholders.

It can thus be said that the Indian M&E industry stands at a critical juncture where the balance between content creation and copyright protection must be carefully maintained. As the industry continues to expand, fuelled by digital platforms and global reach, addressing copyright challenges in the digital space becomes even more vital.