Copyright Issues in Users – Generated Content Platforms

Statutory Framework and International Context

In India, copyright in artistic works subsists under Sections 13 and 14 of the Act, granting authors exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, distribution, and public communication. Duration is typically the lifetime of the author plus sixty years (Sec. 22). Importantly, moral rights (Sec. 57) allow authors to claim attribution and object to derogatory treatment of their works.

Internationally, the Berne Convention (1886) obliges member states to recognise both economic and moral rights of authors, while the TRIPS Agreement (1995) requires effective enforcement mechanisms. The WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996) further extends protection to digital environments.

Unlike the United States, which follows a utilitarian rationale (protecting works to promote “progress of science and useful arts”), India and continental Europe reflect the civil law emphasis on authors’ rights and moral integrity.

Foundations of Artistic Copyright in India

Under the Copyright Act of 1957, “artistic works” are specifically protected under Section 2(c), which includes drawings, photographs, paintings, and sculptures  . The law grants authors exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt, communicate, or commercially exploit their works  .

India also recognises moral rights—notably the right to integrity and attribution—under Section 57. The landmark case Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India affirmed that destruction or mutilation of a mural violates an artist’s moral rights, ordering its restoration and awarding damages  .

Fair dealing exemptions—under Section 52(1)—allow limited use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism, review, or satire  . In Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, Kerala High Court upheld that even substantial reproduction may be permissible if in the public interest, reinforcing flexible application of fair dealing.

Memes: Creative Expression or Copyright Violation?

Memes—often humorous or satirical edits of existing images—are ubiquitous in digital culture. Legally, they fall under “artistic works” if based on photographs or drawings  . Using copyrighted images without permission typically constitutes infringement, unless covered by a fair dealing defence  .

Fair dealing for memes depends on several factors:

• Purpose: Recreational, non-commercial uses may favour fair dealing, unlike commercial exploitation  .
• Nature and Substantiality: Using small or transformative portions helps; borrowing entire frames may infringe  .
• Market effect: Memes typically don’t compete with original works’ markets, which supports fair dealing  .

Though India lacks monopoly on meme litigation, courts have recognised parody and satire as valid fair dealing, as seen in Civic Chandran  .

In political contexts, concerns rise: memes used for campaign promotion may not qualify for protection under fair dealing. For instance, Griner v. King in the U.S. held that a meme used in political fundraising was not fair use  . Indian courts likely would assess such cases closely due to narrower fair dealing provisions  .

Thus, memes could be defensible under copyright law—particularly when transformation and humour are central—but clarity remains elusive until litigated.

AI-Generated Art: An Emerging Frontier

AI tools like MidJourney, DALL·E, ChatGPT, and others generate images based on vast datasets—raising questions of authorship, originality, and ownership under the 1957 Act.

India’s Copyright Office initially granted a license for a piece co-authored by an AI named “Raghav,” but later revoked it due to lack of human authorship  . The law currently defines a human as the “author” of machine-generated works under Section 2(d)(vi)  . Thus, AI alone cannot hold copyright.

Nevertheless, government signals may be shifting. A Reddit report referenced a ministerial statement suggesting existing law may be sufficient to grant protection if a human is named as the creator, even if AI-generated  .

Additionally, India has established an expert panel to review how the 1957 law addresses AI-generated content—spurred by lawsuits from publishers over AI training using copyrighted works without permission  .

Internationally, courts like Canada’s have allowed listing AI as co-author if a human programmer plays a significant role  .

In India, AI-generated art remains largely unprotected—highlighting an urgent need for legislative reform to clarify authorship, data training use, and licensing.

Tests of Originality in India

Skill and Labour Doctrine (Pre-2007)

Earlier Indian courts followed the “sweat of the brow” approach, protecting works that involved significant labour, even if little creativity was present. In Macmillan & Co. v. K. & J. Cooper (AIR 1924 PC 75), the Privy Council upheld copyright in a selection of passages from classics because of the compiler’s labour and judgment.

Shift in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak

The Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1 departed from the mechanical labour test. It held that originality requires a “minimal degree of creativity”. Simple copy-editing of judgments without creative input was not enough. However, editorial headnotes and paragraph numbering that involved intellectual effort could attract protection.

This “skill and judgment with creativity” test aligns India more closely with the U.S. decision in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (499 U.S. 340, 1991), where the Supreme Court rejected protection for a telephone directory, holding that facts are not protectable and originality demands creativity.

Idea–Expression Dichotomy and Substantial Similarity

The case of R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) 4 SCC 118 established a key principle: copyright protects expression, not ideas. The plaintiff, a playwright, alleged that his play was copied into a film. The Court ruled that while both works shared a theme, the expression, treatment, and presentation were different. It held that if an average viewer concludes that one work is a mere copy of another, infringement is established; otherwise, similarity of general ideas is insufficient.

This principle mirrors international jurisprudence: in Nichols v. Universal Pictures (45 F.2d 119, 2d Cir. 1930), Judge Learned Hand articulated the famous “abstraction test” for determining similarity of expression versus unprotectable ideas.

Moral Rights of Artists

Moral rights, codified in Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, allow authors to claim authorship and object to distortion, mutilation, or modification prejudicial to their honour.

In Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (117 (2005) DLT 717), the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment. The Government had dismantled Sehgal’s bronze mural at Vigyan Bhawan, damaging the work. The Court recognised Sehgal’s right to integrity, holding that even though economic rights had been transferred, his moral rights survived. The Court ordered the restoration of the mural’s remnants and compensation.

Similarly, in Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Motion Pictures Ltd. (AIR 1987 Delhi 13), the Court held that film producers could not distort the author’s novel in adaptation, as it violated her moral right of integrity.

Comparatively, France provides some of the strongest protection of moral rights, recognising them as perpetual, inalienable, and imprescriptible. In contrast, the U.S. limits moral rights largely to visual artists under the Visual Artists Rights Act, 1990 (VARA). India falls somewhere in between, providing statutory rights but limiting their scope.

Contemporary Challenges

Digital Reproduction

Social media platforms enable effortless copying and sharing of images, memes, and illustrations. Enforcement remains weak, and Section 52 (fair dealing exceptions) often creates uncertainty.

AI-Generated Art

Current law does not clarify whether copyright in AI-created images vests in the programmer, the user, or remains unprotected. The U.K. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 (Sec. 9(3)) attributes authorship of computer-generated works to the person making “arrangements necessary,” but Indian law has no such provision.

Photography and Consent

With digital editing and filters, unauthorised manipulations raise new moral rights concerns. Indian law is silent on deepfakes and AI image manipulations.

Architecture and Design Overlap

Confusion persists between copyright in architectural drawings and protection under the Designs Act, 2000, especially in cases of mass-produced works.

Goals of Copyright in Artistic Works

• Encouraging Creativity – By ensuring creators receive economic benefits and recognition.
• Preserving Cultural Heritage – Protecting artistic works prevents destruction or derogatory treatment, as in Sehgal.
• International Harmonisation – Aligning with Berne and TRIPS obligations.
• Balancing Interests – Preventing monopolisation of mere ideas while rewarding originality.

Loopholes and Limitations

• Ambiguity in originality tests (“minimal creativity” remains vague).
• Lack of clarity on AI-generated works.
• Weak online enforcement and takedown mechanisms.
• Limited judicial engagement with memes and derivative digital culture.
• Potential chilling effect where enforcement is too rigid, stifling public creativity.

Suggestions for Reform

• Statutory Clarification of AI Works – Amend the Act to define authorship of computer-generated artistic works, drawing inspiration from the U.K. model.
• Digital Copyright Enforcement – Create specialised mechanisms for online takedowns, possibly through AI-powered monitoring under DPIIT.
• Guidelines for Fair Use in Memes and Parody – Clearer delineation between fair dealing and infringement.
• Strengthening Moral Rights – Expand Section 57 to cover digital distortions, deepfakes, and unauthorised AI manipulations.
• Awareness Campaigns – Educate artists about registration, licensing, and asserting rights.

Conclusion

India’s copyright regime for artistic works has evolved significantly through judicial intervention, particularly in cases such as Modak, R.G. Anand, and Sehgal. These decisions reflect a balance between protecting originality, maintaining freedom of ideas, and preserving authors’ moral rights.

However, the law lags behind in addressing digital copying, AI-generated works, and social media culture. A more future-ready legal framework is needed, inspired by international practices but tailored to Indian realities. Strengthening enforcement, clarifying authorship rules, and expanding moral rights will ensure that artistic creativity continues to thrive while adapting to technological change.