INTRODUCTION:
Digital transformation has reshaped the landscape of content creation, dissemination, and usage, challenging the foundations of traditional Indian copyright law. Due to this, there is a need for the re-evaluation of the copyright law. The interrelationship between digital technologies and copyright law has become a central point of concern for lawmakers, legal scholars, and educators. Finding a middle ground between safeguarding intellectual property and ensuring access to knowledge has become increasingly complicated. This transformation is driven by the need to enhance efficiency, accessibility, and innovation across various sectors, including education, governance, and law.
The Indian Copyright Act 1957[1] has not addressed digital technologies, such as AI, streaming, and online content sharing, in its provisions. As we know, digital creation and consumption are growing expeditiously, revisions to the current Indian Copyright Act are necessary to ensure the protection of creators’ rights, foster innovation, and allow for easy access to information without compromising the rights of creators.[2]
NEED FOR REFORMATION OF THE INDIAN COPYRIGHT ACT,1957[3]:
The Indian Copyright Act, 1957[4], is becoming obsolete due to the emergence of digital platforms where the content of real creators is copied and disseminated without any permission. The Indian Copyright Act requires reform to tackle the following issues.[5]:
Social Media Platforms:
The emergence of social media platforms has created a considerable challenge for the Indian Copyright Act. Social media platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have given individuals exceptional access to global audiences, enabling them to create and disseminate entertainment, art, and information without being aware of legal challenges. The purpose of the Indian Copyright Act was to safeguard content that was disseminated via tangible media, such as records, movies, and books. However, today, creators, often lacking legal knowledge, contribute a substantial amount of content to social media platforms, which leads to copyright disputes and infringement claims.
One of the significant challenges which is faced by creators is how easily users can post, modify, and distribute their copyrighted material to any social media platform without the permission of the original creator. The nature of these platforms has blurred the lines between the original work and modified versions, questioning the ownership of the content disseminated without any legal agreement.[6]
Artificial Intelligence:
The main piece of legislation safeguarding authors’ Intellectual Property is the Indian Copyright Act 1957[7]. A natural person who produces the work is called the ‘author’ under this statute. Therefore, it subtly removes any non–human creation, including artificial intelligence, from the definition of author. Many questions arise as a result of this elimination, such as who owns the artificial intelligence-generated work? Can copyright laws be used to safeguard artificial intelligence work? And who will be responsible for the work that artificial intelligence produces? The gadget itself, the individual who built it, or the person who produced the material using it? The author is defined in the act’s Section 2(c)[8]. According to the definition, the author is a real person who writes the material himself. Under copyright law, the author is the first and most important person to create the legal right to protect the content.
Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, defines the term ‘author’:
- The individual who produces the work is referred to as the author in the context of literary and dramatic creations.
- The composer is acknowledged as the creator of musical works.
- The artist is the author of artistic works.
- The author of a photograph is the individual who captures it.
- The producer is referred to as the author for cinematographic films and sound recordings.[9]
Here, the work produced by Artificial Intelligence is not referenced.
Streaming Platforms:
The Copyright Rules of 2013[10] and Section 31D of the Copyright Act of 1957[11] govern online platforms. A broadcasting organisation must obtain a statutory license from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and pay royalties to the copyright owner in advance if it wishes to transmit a broadcast or performance of a literary or musical work that has already been published, as per this section. To broadcast their work, broadcasting organisations are required by law to notify the copyright owner. The purpose of this notice is to inform the owner and not to request permission. The permission is needed only to make technical changes to the material.
An office memo from the industrial groups in September 2016 inquired as to whether internet broadcasting companies could obtain statutory licenses under Section 31D of the Copyright (Amendment) Act. The internet agencies were now subject to section 31D of the Act as a result. Even though the term “internet broadcasting” was absent from the section itself.
Problems:
- Requirement of License: These platforms have trouble buying the original copyrighted work because they lack a centralised licensing system. Wynk and Spotify are two examples of platforms that aim for Section 31D protection. Since it states that notice of use of copyrighted works should only be sent to inform and not to obtain permission from the original owner, this section is hotly contested. Regulations governing these platforms are noticeably lacking.
- Platform Liability: Users who violate any laws while using these platforms are not subject to any regulations. No clause establishes these online platforms’ liability because they have a safe zone where they are typically immune from liability if they are not aware of the user’s actions.
- Illegal sites: Many illegal sites take the content of the original owner without their permission and disseminate it on their site. This infringes the legal rights of the owner even after getting his work copyrighted. One major example of this is a platform like Telegram, which circulates several illegal contents.[12]
Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Music Ltd. (2019)[13]
The Bombay High Court ruled that digital streaming platforms like Wynk must obtain individual licenses from music labels and cannot rely solely on Section 31D of the Copyright Act.
LEGAL RULINGS ECHOING THE SAME PERSPECTIVE:
Rupendra Kashyap v. Jiwan Publishing House Pvt. Ltd (1996)[14]
In this case, it was held that copyright exists only if the author is a natural person and not an artificial person. As a result, one cannot claim that a machine is the owner of the intellectual property.[15]
Navigators Logistics Ltd. vs. Kashif Qureshi & Ors (2018)[16]
In this instance, it was decided that since a computer generated the list without human input, copyright could not be claimed for it. It is ineligible for copyright protection due to the lack of human intervention. This demonstrated how difficult it is to apply conventional copyright law to content created by machines.
SUGGESTIONS:
Addressing multifaceted challenges posed by digital technologies requires the Indian Copyright Act to undergo a comprehensive and timely overhaul.
- First, the definition of “author” should be expanded to include AI-generated content with clear guidelines on ownership, liability, and rights attribution, possibly favouring the person directing the AI or holding the dataset used.
- Second, platform liability must be reassessed; digital platforms should be made partly accountable for copyright infringement when they fail to act upon takedown notices or knowingly host pirated content.
- Third, Section 31D should be amended to clarify its applicability to online streaming services. Licensing norms should be made more transparent and digital-friendly, ensuring that both content creators and platforms can operate with legal clarity. Further, a centralised digital copyright registry could be established to ease the identification, licensing, and protection of works.
- Lastly, awareness programs and simplified dispute resolution mechanisms should be promoted to educate digital creators about their rights and provide swift remedies. These reforms will not only protect creators in the digital age but also ensure innovation, ease of access, and effective copyright enforcement in India’s evolving digital ecosystem.
CONCLUSION:
The gaps and shortcomings in the Indian Copyright Act of 1957 have been revealed by the quick development of digital technologies. From social media misuse to AI-generated content and streaming platforms, the current law falls short of addressing modern challenges. As digital creation and dissemination continue to rise, a comprehensive reform is essential to safeguard creators’ rights while promoting accessibility and innovation. Updating the Act to define authorship in the digital age, regulate online platforms, and strengthen enforcement mechanisms will ensure that copyright law remains relevant, equitable, and future-ready in the face of ongoing technological advancements.
Author(s) Name: Disha Singh (Government Law College, Indore)
References:
[1] Indian Copyright Act 1957
[2] Raj Kumar and Asheesh Yadav, ‘Reimagining Copyright Law in the Digital Age: Challenges, Reforms, and
Educational Access in India’ (Preprint, 30 June 2025)
<https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202506.2225/v1 > accessed 16 July 2025
[3] Indian Copyright Act 1957
[4] Ibid
[5] Shalu Gothi and Daisy Jain, ‘Copyright Act, 1957’ (Ipleaders, 30 March 2020) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/an-overview-of-the-copyright-act-1957/#Lacunae_in_the_Copyright_Act> accessed 16 July 2025
[6] Aryan Asthana and Dr. Shova Devi, ‘Copyright In The Digital Age: Challenges, Reforms, And The Way Forward’ (2022) 7(2) Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research <https://www.ijllr.com/post/copyright-in-the-digital-age-challenges-reforms-and-the-way-forward> accessed 16 July 2025
[7] Indian Copyright Act 1957
[8] Indian Copyright Act 1957, s 2(c)
[9] Greeshmika Ponnada, ‘Copyright Challenges In AI-Generated Artworks: Interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 India’ (The Amikus Qriae) <https://theamikusqriae.com/copyright-challenges-in-ai-generated-artworks-interpretation-of-section-2c-of-the-copyright-act-1957-in-india/> accessed 16 July 2025
[10] The Copyright Rules 2013
[11] Indian Copyright Act 1957, s 31D
[12] Isha Jagetiya, ‘The Eruption of Online Streaming Platforms and the Ensuing Issues of Copyright in India’ (Cell for Studies in Intellectual Property Rights, 28 October 2023) <https://csipr.nliu.ac.in/miscellaneous/the-eruption-of-online-streaming-platforms-and-the-ensuing-issues-of-copyright-in-india/> accessed 17 July 2025
[13] Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Music Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 13087 (Bombay High Court, 23 April 2019)
[14] Rupendra Kashyap v. Jiwan Publishing House Pvt. Ltd (1996) (38) DRJ81
[15] Arjun Garg and Sargun Srivastava, ‘Legal Implications And Accountability Qua Artificial Intelligence And Big Data Trends’ ( Live Law, 21 June 2021) <https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/legal-implications-accountability-artificial-intelligence-big-data-trends-176060> accessed 16 July 2025
[16] Navigators Logistics Ltd. vs. Kashif Qureshi & Ors (2018) DEL 1483
