INTRODUCTION:
Journalism depends on the free exchange of information. Journalists have to tread carefully between the limits of press freedom and intellectual property rights. In a democratic country like India, a journalist’s privilege is connected to a variety of rights and has always been a sensitive topic. India’s rapidly evolving landscape has got journalists to navigate a delicate balance between two critical legal frameworks- journalistic privilege and copyright law. While Journalistic privilege upholds the freedom of the press, copyright law governs the ownership and use of creative content. The convergence of the two presents specific challenges, particularly in the current era of digital proliferation, where information is disseminated quickly across media platforms. Unrestricted sharing and reproduction of protected materials can hurt a creator’s financial and moral rights, thereby deterring them from creating new work. Finding a balance is essential because, although artists should be rewarded and given financial security for their contributions, excessively stringent copyright laws can stifle creativity and public access to knowledge. Finding a just balance between accessibility and protection remains a significant concern in the digital age.
BALANCING RIGHTS:
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution[1], which upholds freedom of speech and expression, encourages whistleblowers to speak out on important issues without fear of consequences. Copyright laws for authors and publishers are essential, but excessive restrictions hinder the freedom of expression by limiting public access to diverse information. Copyright law protects the expression of an idea, and not the idea itself. Similarly, copyright law does not protect facts and information because facts are not expressions of authorship. Basic facts and current events are not copyrighted in their original form, that is, when they are not accompanied by some analysis, criticism, or interpretation.
Section 52 of The Copyright Act, 1957 of India,[2] discusses the exceptions to copyright infringement. Section 52(1)(a) of the Act[3] Allows for the reproduction of copyrighted works
for criticism, analysis, review, instruction, or adaptation, or news reporting. Section 52(1)(c)[4] The Act permits the broadcasting of works through television or radio networks to enhance freedom of expression. In the same manner, section 52(1)(h)[5] The same act permits the use of copyrighted material in connection with a report of current events as long as the use does not amount to performance or publication. These provisions are essential in ensuring that press freedom and artistic criticism are protected so that journalism does not violate the law.
FAIR USE DOCTRINE:
The doctrine of ‘fair dealing’ or ‘fair use’ establishes a balance between the monopolistic interests of authors and the broader creative interests of society. It is the permitted portion of the copyrighted work. This doctrine is more of a subjective concept and cannot be defined by any specific set of definitions. An essential motive behind this doctrine is that not all work should be prohibited. Especially when a work serves a socially significant purpose or is used for the pursuit of criticism or research.
In India, the concept of the doctrine of fair dealing lacks clear specifications regarding what qualifies as a significant or insubstantial portion of work. Indian copyright law states that fair use of copyrighted work is not an infringement. Journalism often requires the use of videos and audio clips, texts, etc, to ensure precise reporting. Seeking permission from the copyright holder each and every time would delay the news coverage. It would also make it harder for media outlets to keep the public informed in real-time. Reporting the news would hence become a tedious process, thereby restricting the media’s ability to inform the public quickly and effectively. Each case is judged individually, so it’s important to consider all the factors before relying on the exception.
CASE STUDY:
The Indian judiciary plays a crucial role in balancing copyright laws and free expression by interpreting legal provisions, resolving disputes, and setting legal precedents. It nurtures creativity while ensuring that freedom of expression remains protected. Courts examine cases of copyright infringement to prevent creators’ work from being misused or distorted. While doing so, they consider factors such as the purpose of the usage of content, the amount of content taken, and its effect on the market. There is no universal rule, and each situation must be assessed on its unique facts.
In the case of ESPN Star Sports v Global Broadcast News Ltd.[6]Justice S. Ravindra Bhat emphasized that the determination of fair dealing depends on the context, the portion of the original work used, and its purpose.
In a legal dispute over the use of NTR’s photos and posters[7]The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that no group can claim exclusive rights over images of national leaders. After NTR’s passing, a pro-NTR group objected to their rivals using his photos, but the court refused to restrict their use, recognizing NTR as a national figure. However, in cases where a photographer takes a highly creative photo, they own its economic rights, regardless of any political claims. If someone publishes such a photo without consent, they could face legal action for breach of confidentiality.
CONCLUSION:
As the internet’s influence expands, copyright law encounters unique challenges and complexities. The established regimes of copyright do not always possess the tools for dealing with the quickly changing digital environment. Copyright proprietors understandably attempt to maintain ownership of intellectual property and maximize financial gain through what they create, while ordinary people desire exposure to knowledge at a time in which the globe is becoming even more digitally advanced.
In order to solve this conflict, the fair use or fair dealing laws need to be consistent with the modern digital environment. The laws should balance the protection of the creators’ rights with fostering the free flow of information, innovation, and learning. The redefinition of fair use or fair dealing laws involves a total reconsideration and reinterpretation of their meaning and extent in the digital era. It involves considering issues like the transformative character of original creative works, their effect on the market, and the existence of copyrighted content in the digital world.
The clash between copyright and freedom of expression is most evident in debates over fair use, transformative works, and digital sharing. While copyright laws in journalism exist to protect journalists’ work and keep the public informed, they can also limit how others use content for criticism, parody, or education.
Author(s) Name: Silvia Kalita
References:
[1] Constitution of India, art 19(1)(a)
[2] The Copyright Act 1957, sec 52
[3] The Copyright Act 1957, sec 52(1)(a)
[4] The Copyright Act 1957, sec 52(1)(c)
[5] The Copyright Act 1957, sec 52(1)(h)
[6] ESPN Star Sports v Global Broadcast News Ltd 2008 SCC Online Del 1385, (2008) 38 PTC 477 (DB).
[7] https://www.firstpost.com/politics/photo-wars-political-parties-lay-claim-to-ntrs-legacy-in-andhra-pradesh-691689.html < accessed on 10 Feb, 2025>
