Two beliefs stop most Indian creators and businesses from doing anything about copying. The first is that you cannot act unless the work is registered. The second is that the copier can escape by calling it fair use. Both are wrong, and the second is wrong in a way that matters: India does not have fair use at all. What it has is a closed list of permitted purposes, and most casual copying is not on it. This page sets out what copyright you already have without doing anything, what counts as infringement, why a notice changes what you can recover, and when the criminal provisions are available.
Copyright is not something you apply for in India. It comes into existence when an original work is created and fixed in some material form. The photograph you took this morning, the article you posted last year, the drawings in your product catalogue, the code you wrote, the song you recorded — copyright subsisted in each of them from the moment it existed, without any filing, fee or certificate.
The Act sets out the classes of work in which copyright subsists: original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings. “Literary work” is broad and includes computer programmes, tables and compilations. “Artistic work” includes a painting, a sculpture, a drawing including a diagram, map, chart or plan, an engraving, a photograph, a work of architecture, and any other work of artistic craftsmanship.
Two qualifications matter and should be stated honestly.
Section 45, Copyright Act, 1957, in substance. The author or publisher of, or the owner of or other person interested in the copyright in, any work may make an application in the prescribed form accompanied by the prescribed fee to the Registrar of Copyrights for entering particulars of the work in the Register of Copyrights.
The word is “may”. There is no provision anywhere in the Act making registration a condition of subsistence, of ownership, or of the right to sue.
What registration does give you is evidentiary convenience. The Register is admissible as evidence of the particulars entered in it, so a registered owner arrives at a dispute with a document that states the work, the author, the date and the ownership. Without it, you prove those things the ordinary way — with drafts, files, metadata, correspondence, publication records and witnesses.
| Registered | Unregistered | |
|---|---|---|
| Copyright exists? | Yes | Yes |
| Can send a notice? | Yes | Yes |
| Can sue for injunction and damages? | Yes | Yes |
| Criminal remedy available? | Yes | Yes |
| Proof of ownership | The certificate does much of the work | You prove it with your own material |
| Practical effect in a dispute | You start further ahead | More evidence to assemble, same rights |
So the honest advice is: register work that matters, because it makes life easier later — and never let the absence of a registration stop you from acting today.
Before sending a notice, be sure you can answer the question the other side will ask first: on what basis do you own this?
The general rule is that the author is the first owner. An employer owns work made in the course of employment under a contract of service, in the absence of agreement to the contrary. A freelancer, contractor or agency works under a contract for services, and payment alone does not transfer the copyright — an assignment must be in writing and signed.
This is where a great many enforcement attempts collapse. A company discovers its website copy, its product photographs or its logo have been copied, and then discovers that it never took a written assignment from the designer who made them. We set out the assignment mechanics, including the statutory defaults on term and territory, in our freelance agreement guide, and the creator-side position in our influencer agreement guide.
Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights rather than a single right, and the bundle differs by class of work. For a literary, dramatic or musical work it includes, broadly, the exclusive right to reproduce the work, to issue copies to the public, to perform it in public, to communicate it to the public, to make a cinematograph film or sound recording of it, to make a translation, to make an adaptation, and to do any of those acts in relation to a translation or adaptation.
Two practical consequences follow.
Section 51, in substance. Copyright in a work is deemed to be infringed when any person, without a licence granted by the owner or the Registrar of Copyrights or in contravention of the conditions of a licence, does anything the exclusive right to do which is conferred by the Act upon the owner — or permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that it would be an infringement.
Copyright is also deemed to be infringed when a person makes for sale or hire, sells or lets for hire, distributes, exhibits in public by way of trade, or imports into India infringing copies of the work.
Three points worth drawing out of that.
The most important limit on copyright is that it protects expression, not ideas.
R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films, Supreme Court, 18 August 1978. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject-matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts, and violation of copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner, arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyrighted work. Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, similarities are bound to occur, and the courts should determine whether the similarities are fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression. The surest and safest test is to see whether the reader, spectator or viewer, after having read or seen both the works, is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.
That framework decides a large number of real disputes, and it cuts both ways.
If somebody has taken your concept — a business idea, a format, a theme, a style of doing something — and executed it themselves in their own words and images, you may well have no copyright claim, however unfair it feels. Other rights may be engaged, such as trade mark or confidentiality, and our NDA guide deals with the confidentiality route. But copyright is not the tool for protecting an idea.
If somebody has taken your expression — your sentences, your photograph, your layout, your code, your recording — and reproduced it, the fact that they changed a few words does not help them, because the test is the impression on the ordinary reader or viewer.
Clients ask for a percentage. There is not one, and anybody offering a figure is inventing it.
The question is whether a substantial part of the work has been taken, and substantiality is assessed by quality as well as quantity. The classic formulation is that what matters is not how much was taken but whether what was taken was important — the distinctive part, the part that gives the work its value.
| What was taken | Why it can still be substantial |
|---|---|
| Four lines of a longer article | If they are the distinctive insight the piece exists for |
| One photograph from a set of two hundred | Each photograph is a work in its own right |
| A short passage of code | If it is the specific implementation rather than an obvious approach |
| A recognisable musical phrase | Substantiality is qualitative |
| A page layout and sequence | Where the arrangement itself reflects skill and judgment |
| A paraphrase that follows your structure closely | Copying the form and arrangement, not only the words |
Conversely, taking a commonplace fact, a standard phrase, a generic stock element or an obvious way of expressing something is unlikely to be substantial, because those parts are not where the author’s own skill lies.
This is the most consequential misunderstanding in the whole subject, and it comes from watching American content about American law.
India does not have fair use. The United States has an open-ended fair use doctrine, where a court weighs four factors and can find almost any use fair if the balance favours it. India has fair dealing under Section 52, which operates quite differently: it lists specific acts that shall not constitute infringement. If the use does not fall within one of the listed purposes, the analysis does not proceed to a balancing test. It simply is not covered.
Section 52 is long, and the acts it covers include, in substance:
Two features of the fair dealing provisions are worth emphasising.
The purpose has to be one on the list. “Criticism or review” is on it; “because I liked it and wanted to share it” is not. A commentary video that genuinely reviews a work engages the provision; a post that reproduces the work with a caption does not become criticism because it carries an opinion at the end.
The dealing still has to be fair. Even within a listed purpose, taking more than the purpose requires, or taking in a way that substitutes for the original, is unlikely to qualify. A review that reproduces the whole work is not a review.
One further point, because it arises constantly: news reporting is a listed purpose but it is not a general licence. Reporting current events permits fair dealing with a work for that purpose. It does not permit a publication to lift another outlet’s photographs wholesale because the subject is newsworthy.
These four arrive in almost every reply we receive, and none of them is a defence.
Section 55(1), in substance. Where copyright in any work has been infringed, the owner of the copyright shall, except as otherwise provided by the Act, be entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise as are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right.
Proviso. If the defendant proves that at the date of the infringement he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that copyright subsisted in the work, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any remedy other than an injunction in respect of the infringement and a decree for the whole or part of the profits made by the defendant by the sale of the infringing copies.
Read that proviso carefully, because it is the single best argument for sending a notice early.
An infringer who can show he genuinely did not know, and had no reasonable ground to believe, that copyright subsisted, limits your recovery to an injunction and an account of profits. Damages come off the table.
A notice destroys that defence from the moment it is received. After a notice, the infringer knows. Everything he does from that day is done with knowledge, and if he continues, the proviso cannot help him for that period. This is why we tell clients not to spend six months feeling annoyed before writing: every month of silence is a month in which the other side may later claim innocence.
It is also why proof of service matters as much here as in any other notice. A notice you cannot prove was delivered does not fix the date of knowledge.
Most copyright disputes are civil. But the Act contains criminal provisions, and in the right case they change the balance entirely.
Section 63, in substance. Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of the copyright in a work, or any other right conferred by the Act except the resale share right, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with a fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees.
Proviso. Where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business, the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.
Section 64, in substance. Any police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, if he is satisfied that an offence under Section 63 in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work has been, is being, or is likely to be committed, seize without warrant all copies of the work and all plates used for the purpose of making infringing copies of the work, wherever found, and all copies and plates so seized shall, as soon as practicable, be produced before a Magistrate.
Four observations.
We say plainly which of your matters, if any, belongs in this category. Most do not. For those that do — a workshop printing your designs, a shop selling copies of your product catalogue, an operation reselling your course — it is the most effective route available.
More small Indian businesses receive a copyright demand over a photograph than over anything else, and the pattern is almost always the same. Somebody built the website years ago, took an image from a search results page, and nobody thought about it again until a letter arrived from an image agency or its representative, quoting a licence fee several times what the image would have cost.
Three things are worth understanding about that letter.
The underlying claim is usually good. A photograph is an artistic work. Copyright subsisted in it from the moment it was taken. It does not matter that the image appeared in search results, that it carried no watermark, or that the person who put it on your site is long gone. Your business published it, and your business is the one communicating it to the public.
“I found it on a search engine” is not a licence. A search engine indexes images; it does not grant rights in them. Nor does a result described as free-to-use necessarily carry the terms people assume — many free licences require attribution in a specified form, exclude commercial use, or exclude use in a logo or a product.
The amount demanded is not automatically the amount payable. A demand quoting a retrospective licence rate is a negotiating position. What the owner is entitled to under Section 55 is damages or an account of profits, and the proviso we discussed above may limit that where the use was genuinely innocent. That is a reason to reply properly rather than either paying the number on the letter or ignoring it.
The mirror image of this is a photographer whose work has been taken, and the position is equally strong in the other direction. A reverse image search across your portfolio is an uncomfortable exercise the first time. Where you find commercial use — a business using your photograph on its site, its packaging or its advertising — the notice route described on this page is straightforward, and photographs are among the easiest works to prove, because the original camera file with its embedded data usually exists only on your machine.
A significant proportion of the enquiries we receive described as “copyright” are actually about something else. Choosing the wrong right wastes the notice and tells the other side you have not taken advice.
| What was taken | Copyright? | What usually fits better |
|---|---|---|
| Your business name or brand name | Generally no — a name is not ordinarily a protected work | Trade mark rights, and passing off where you have goodwill |
| Your logo, copied exactly | Yes — a logo is an artistic work | Copyright and trade mark, together |
| A confusingly similar logo | Maybe, if the expression was substantially taken | Trade mark infringement or passing off is often the stronger claim |
| The shape or look of your product | Rarely — industrial application limits it | Design registration, where it was registered in time |
| Your business idea, model or format | No — no copyright in ideas | Confidentiality, if it was disclosed under an NDA |
| Your customer list or internal data | Possibly, as a compilation | Confidentiality and the employment contract are usually more direct |
| Your method, process or invention | No | Patent, where it was applied for |
| Your website’s text, images and code | Yes — each is a work in its own right | Copyright, and check who owns each of them |
| A false statement about you alongside the copying | No — different wrong | See our defamation notice guide |
The logo row is the one worth expanding, because it is the commonest. A logo is usually an artistic work, so copyright subsists in it — and it usually also functions as a mark identifying your goods or services. Where a competitor has copied it exactly, both rights are engaged and a notice should say so. Where the competitor’s mark is merely similar rather than copied, the copyright claim may be weak while the trade mark or passing-off claim is strong, and a notice that leads with copyright invites a reply pointing that out.
Two practical consequences. First, before sending anything, ask what you are actually trying to stop — reproduction of your material, or confusion in the market. Those are different objectives with different remedies. Second, where the answer is a mark, a design or a patent, the strength of your position depends heavily on what was registered and when; that is a specialist question and the honest answer is to take advice on it rather than to send a copyright notice and hope. Our directory is free to search.
Term matters more often than people expect, particularly where the work is old or the author is long dead.
| Class of work | Term, in substance |
|---|---|
| Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work published in the author’s lifetime | The author’s lifetime plus sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year following his death |
| Joint authorship | Measured from the death of the author who dies last |
| Anonymous or pseudonymous works | Sixty years from publication, subject to the author’s identity being disclosed |
| Posthumous works | Sixty years from publication |
| Photographs | Sixty years, counted as the Act provides |
| Cinematograph films | Sixty years from publication |
| Sound recordings | Sixty years from publication |
| Government works and works of public undertakings | Sixty years from publication |
All the sixty-year periods run from the beginning of the calendar year following the relevant event, which is a small drafting detail with a practical effect on the date. Where a matter turns on whether a term has expired, check it precisely rather than approximately.
Two separate tasks, and both are done before the notice goes out.
Preserve the infringement. Full-page captures showing the URL, the date and the time. The account or business details. Where it appears — every page, not just the one you found. Any indication of scale: how long it has been up, how many copies, whether it is being sold. An independent archive of the page where possible. The moment a notice arrives, the material usually disappears, and a case built on a cropped screenshot is a weak case. Our notice guide sets out the capture checklist in detail and it applies equally here.
Prove your priority. This is the part people forget, and it decides disputes where both sides claim authorship.
That last item is deliberate drafting. It is the sentence that engages the proviso to Section 55(1) and the “knowingly” element of Section 63 from a provable date.
The disclosure demand is the one most often omitted and frequently the most valuable, because it tells you the scale of what has happened and, in a counterfeiting matter, where the copies came from.
Where the infringement is on a platform, there are two parallel tracks and it helps to be clear about which you are on.
The platform’s own process. Most large platforms have a copyright complaint form, frequently labelled with the American statute’s name. Using it is using the platform’s private policy, which is usually quick and often effective. It is not the enforcement of an Indian legal right, and the platform can decline, reinstate on a counter-notice, or apply its own rules.
The DMCA is United States legislation. It is not part of Indian law, and no Indian obligation arises from it. A notice to an Indian business threatening “DMCA action” is citing the wrong law and tends to be treated accordingly. Cite the Copyright Act, 1957.
The Indian legal route. Intermediaries are protected from liability for third-party content where they observe the prescribed due diligence, and they are required to act on receiving actual knowledge in the form of a court order or a government direction. They also operate a grievance mechanism with prescribed timelines. We set that framework out in the notice guide; the practical sequence is the same: the person who posted it, then the platform’s grievance route, then a court order where necessary.
| Route | What it achieves | Best where |
|---|---|---|
| Notice to the infringer | Removal, an undertaking, and knowledge fixed from a provable date | Almost always the first step |
| Platform complaint | Fast removal, under the platform’s policy | Online content on a major platform |
| Civil suit | Injunction, damages, accounts | Continuing or commercial infringement; where you need it stopped by order |
| Criminal complaint | Prosecution, and seizure under Section 64 | Counterfeiting, piracy, organised commercial copying |
| Doing nothing | Nothing — and it lets the other side claim innocence later | Almost never the right answer, even if you choose not to escalate |
The last row is the one worth acting on. Even where the copying is trivial and you do not intend to litigate, a short notice costs little and removes the innocence argument permanently. Silence is the only option with no upside.
Half of this work is on the receiving side, and a reasoned reply resolves most of it.
Where you did take the material and there is no answer, an early, sensible resolution — removal and a reasonable payment — is almost always cheaper than the alternative, and the criminal provisions make that arithmetic clearer than in most disputes.
| What happens | Why it is a problem | What to do instead |
|---|---|---|
| “I am not registered, so I cannot act” | Registration is optional under Section 45 | Act now; register valuable work in parallel |
| Waiting months before writing | Every month supports an innocence claim under the Section 55 proviso | Notice early, even a short one |
| Messaging them before capturing the page | It disappears within hours | Preserve first, then write |
| Accepting “it is fair use” | Not Indian law; Section 52 is a closed list | Ask which listed purpose applies |
| Claiming an idea was copied | No copyright in ideas — R.G. Anand | Identify the expression taken, or consider other rights |
| Sending a notice without checking your own chain | The first reply asks how you own it | Find the written assignment before writing |
| Threatening “DMCA action” in India | Wrong statute; it undermines the notice | Cite the Copyright Act, 1957 |
| Demanding only money | Reads as monetised, and removal is what you actually want | Removal, undertaking, disclosure; money last |
| No proof of service | The date of knowledge is the point of the notice | A mode that proves delivery, and keep it |
| Using the criminal route for a minor reposting | Disproportionate and counter-productive | Reserve it for commercial copying |
Drafting starts at ₹3,999 and ordinarily takes 1 – 3 days. The assessment is included, and sometimes the assessment is the whole answer.
| What is included | Why |
|---|---|
| Reviewing what was copied | Expression or idea, and whether a substantial part was taken |
| Checking your ownership chain | The first question the other side will ask |
| Evidence and priority guidance | Before anything is sent, because material disappears |
| The notice itself | Work identified, ownership stated, copying shown, knowledge fixed |
| Dispatch by a mode that proves service | The date of knowledge is the point |
| Platform grievance, where relevant | Often the fastest removal |
| Reply to a notice received | Built on subsistence, ownership, substantiality and Section 52 |
| A view on the route if it continues | Civil, criminal, or stopping here |
Where the matter proceeds to court, that is advocacy rather than documentation and you will need a practising advocate to appear; our directory is free to search and we do not charge for a referral. A short consultation before anything is drafted is frequently the cheapest money spent on the whole matter. Where the answer is a licence rather than a fight, our content licensing service covers that, and where the copying has also involved a false statement about you, see our defamation notice service.
If the answer to the fourth or fifth question goes against you, the honest advice is not to send the notice. A claim that collapses on the first reply is worse than no claim, and we would rather tell you that on the first call.
An infringer who can say he did not know that copyright subsisted limits you to an injunction and his profits — no damages. A served notice ends that argument permanently, from a date you can prove. Send us the two links and we will tell you, before you spend anything, whether this is infringement worth acting on and what the notice should demand.
Two doors, both free. Clients search a factual directory of enrolled advocates. Advocates apply to be listed on it — no fee, no commission, nothing paid in either direction.
Search Bar Council enrolled advocates by what your matter is about, by court, or by city. Searching and sending a request are both free.
Enrolled advocates anywhere in India can apply to be listed. Your entry is published only after we verify your enrolment number with your State Bar Council.
This directory carries no ratings, no reviews, no rankings and no fees — only the factual particulars the Bar Council of India permits, published at each advocate's own request. Browse the network · Terms for Advocates