INTRODUCTION

In the era of rapid technological advancements and the pervasive influence of the
internet, digital copyright has emerged as a critical and multifaceted concern. As
the digital landscape continues to evolve, creators, users, and policymakers grapple
with an array of complex issues related to protecting intellectual property in the
online realm. This topic delves into the challenges, controversies, and legal
complexities surrounding digital copyright, exploring the implications for content
creators, consumers, and the global digital community. From issues of piracy and
infringement to the ever-changing nature of technological innovation,
understanding the intricacies of digital copyright is crucial in shaping a fair and
sustainable digital environment. This article aims to shed light on the key issues
and debates in digital copyright, offering insights into the ongoing efforts to strike
a balance between creativity, access to knowledge, and the preservation of artistic
integrity in the digital age.

Copyright is grounded in an economic philosophy that prohibits individuals from

profiting off the creative works of others. The continuous advancement of
technology continually broadens the reach and subject matter of copyright
protection. Digital copyright specifically addresses the realm of artistic, literary,
musical, and other creative works in the cyberspace domain, necessitating the
constant updating of copyright laws to effectively address technological offenses in
this domain.

Indian copyright law has often been overshadowed by its English counterpart;
however, with the forces of globalization and the growing economic significance of
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in general, and copyright in particular, India has
undergone a transformative shift. Over time, the Indian legislature has tailored its
own distinct approach, infusing the field of copyright law with its unique colour
and essence.

This article predominantly focuses on the legal aspects of digital copyright,

examining the myriad challenges and complexities encountered in this sphere. By
delving into the intricacies of digital copyright, it seeks to shed light on the
evolving landscape of intellectual property protection, the intricacies of cyberspace,
and the pertinent issues that arise in this dynamic domain.

TYPES OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Infringement of copyright in the cyberspace realm encompasses a range of

unauthorized activities that violate the exclusive rights of copyright owners. These
violations occur in various forms and mediums, and understanding them is crucial
to protect the rights of creators and copyright holders.

One prevalent form of infringement involves downloading and uploading

copyrighted material from the internet without appropriate authorization. This
process of copying or reproducing material available online without adhering to
the stipulated restrictions can lead to offenses.

Another violation arises when multiple programs are compiled to create derivative
works, without obtaining the necessary permissions, thus infringing on copyright
protection.

Hot-linking is another practice that infringes on copyright rights. It involves

displaying images on a website by linking to websites hosting those images,
potentially violating the rights of the copyright owners.

Audio-video works are not exempt from infringement either. Copying audio or
video files through peer-to-peer file-sharing networks can amount to violations of
copyright.

The concept of multimedia is vast and encompasses text, sounds, audio, video,
images, graphics, presentations, live videos of speeches, performances, and more.
Copyright protection is applicable to various elements of multimedia, making it
challenging to safeguard the rights of creators and copyright owners due to the
myriad rights available under this domain.

Infringement in multimedia involves copying works without permission,

distributing multimedia products for purposes other than education, creating
prints of literary or artistic works without prior permission, and dubbing and
selling sound recordings without the creator’s authorization.
Software piracy is a significant concern in copyright infringement. Unauthorized
copying and distribution of copyrighted software, including selling copies,
exporting, renting, or pre-installing pirated software on hardware machines, are
common examples of software piracy.

Social media platforms have emerged as prominent means of global connectivity,

but they have also become hotspots for copyright infringements. Sharing
copyrighted works, such as images and photographs, without proper authorization
is a widespread issue. Misconceptions that materials posted on social media are
free often lead to such violations.

Infringements on social media platforms may include re-posting, saving, or sharing

copyrighted works without permission, falsely claiming ownership or creation
rights of protected works, and using content without the owner’s prior consent.
These copyright violations on social media platforms pose significant challenges in
protecting intellectual property rights in the digital age.

JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES

In cases of online copyright infringement, the complexity arises from the

involvement of multiple countries or regions due to the intangible nature of the
internet. This creates a perplexing challenge in determining the appropriate
jurisdiction to handle such matters. Protecting copyrights in the global market
becomes especially challenging as copyright infringements often span across more
than one state. This can occur because either the infringer or the copyright owner
resides in a different country, or the act of infringement takes place in a jurisdiction
different from where the copyright is registered.

The crucial question that emerges is which jurisdiction has the right to handle such
cases. Each state and its legal system hold the responsibility of determining the
court with jurisdiction when matters involve international elements, even in cases
that are also subject to international treaties. The concept of territoriality plays a
significant role in determining jurisdiction. This principle, deeply rooted in both
municipal and international law, contributes to the complexity surrounding the
protection and infringement of copyrights. After establishing an infringement case,
the challenge lies in deciding which jurisdiction’s laws and courts should be
applied, adding further difficulties to the process.

LAWS IN THIS REGARD

Types of work protected:

The Indian copyright law provides protection for a diverse range of creative works.
Under the provisions of the Copyright Act, it safeguards the rights of creators and
copyright holders in various categories, including:

1. Literary Works: This category encompasses original written works such as

books, articles, poems, and computer programs.
2. Dramatic Works: It covers original scripts, plays, and other forms of dramatic
writings.
3. Musical Works: This includes original compositions of music, both with or
without lyrics.
4. Artistic Works: It protects original artworks, such as paintings, sculptures,
photographs, and other visual creations.
5. Cinematograph Films: The copyright law safeguards the works of filmmakers,
including movies and audio-visual productions.
6. Sound Recordings: This category covers original audio recordings, such as
songs and music albums.[1]

By granting copyright protection to these diverse forms of expression, the Indian

copyright law seeks to incentivize creativity and provide legal rights to creators,
ensuring they have control over their works and are duly rewarded for their efforts.

Duration of protection

Under the Indian copyright law, different categories of works enjoy varying
durations of protection:[2]

1. Literary, Dramatic, Musical, and Artistic Works: The copyright protection for
these works lasts for the lifetime of the author plus sixty years. This period
begins from the start of the calendar year following the year in which the
author passes away.
 2. Anonymous and Pseudonymous Works: For works published without
revealing the true identity of the author (anonymous) or using a fictitious
name (pseudonymous), the copyright protection also extends for a period of
sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year of
publication.
3. Cinematograph Films: Copyright protection for cinematograph films endures
for a period of sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year following
the year of its publication.
4. Sound Recordings: The copyright protection for sound recordings also lasts
for sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year of its
first publication.
5. Government Works: Works created by the government are subject to
copyright protection for sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year
following the year of publication.
6. Works by Public Undertakings: Copyright protection for works produced by
public undertakings follows the same duration of sixty years from the
beginning of the calendar year following the year of publication.
7. Works by International Agencies: Works created by international agencies are
protected for sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year following the
year of publication.
8. Photographs: The copyright protection for photographs lasts until sixty years
from the beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the
photograph was first published.

These copyright durations aim to strike a balance between rewarding creativity and
allowing access to works for public benefit after a reasonable period.

RECENT JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS

Neetu Singh vs. Rajiv Saumitra & Ors.[3]

The Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the Defendants to prevent them
from reproducing, publishing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale a
copyrighted literary work titled “English for General Competitions,” along with
related artistic works, for which the Plaintiff held the copyright. These books were
originally published through Paramount Reader Publication and later by
Paramount Reader Publication OPC Pvt. Ltd. The Plaintiff had granted the right to
publish these books to Paramount Reader Publication, but no licenses, assignments,
or transfers were made to the Defendants. The Defendants were well aware that the
copyright in the books belonged to the Plaintiff, and they never raised any
objections.

The Plaintiff claimed that the book unlawfully published by the Defendant was an
exact copy that included all the artistic works and original mistakes. The Plaintiff
argued that the copyright in her favour served as prima facie evidence of her
authorship of the book, especially in the absence of a contract of service between
the parties as per Section 17 of the Act.

In addressing the issue of whether a contract of service existed between the parties,
the Court examined the fair use provision and made a distinction between works
used for instructional purposes and those used for commercial purposes. It was
held that the Defendant’s act of copying and selling the study material to students
amounted to commercial activity and could not be considered fair use. The Court
also highlighted that the Plaintiff’s employment status could be determined
through the Articles of Association and any agreements, which were not present in
this case. Consequently, the Court ruled in favour of the Plaintiff, recognizing her
as the rightful owner of the copyright. It was emphasized that in disputes over
copyright between employers and employees, the terms of employment play a
crucial role in determining ownership.

The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of University of Oxford & Ors. Vs.
Rameshwari Photocopy Service & Ors.[4]

The Court issued an injunction against Rameshwari Photocopy Service, prohibiting

them from photocopying copyrighted works, following a petition filed by the
Appellant publishers. The publishers alleged that the photocopy kiosk was
infringing their copyright, leading to significant financial losses, as students were
opting for photocopies instead of purchasing textbooks. However, the Court
recognized that photocopying portions of books for personal use could be
considered fair use, and copyright should not be treated as an absolute right. As a
result, the ban was lifted, and the case was dismissed.

An appeal was made to the Higher Bench of the Delhi High Court, where an
interim injunction was denied to the Appellants. The Court found that the
Defendants’ actions did not constitute copyright infringement as they were justified
for the purpose of educational instruction. The matter was referred back to the
single bench of the Court to determine the necessity of using copyrighted material
in course packs for educational purposes. The Court took into account the financial
constraints faced by economically disadvantaged students who could not afford
multiple textbooks. Eventually, the ban was lifted, and this decision was highly
appreciated by students as it provided them with easy access to education through
course packs.

M/S Lahari Recording Company vs. Union of India[5]

In the current petition, Lahari Recording Company, the Plaintiff, challenges the
validity of sections 31 (1) (b) and 31 D of the Act, asserting that these provisions
infringe upon its fundamental and constitutional rights. Section 31 (1) (b)
introduces a system of compulsory licensing for works when the copyright owner
refuses reasonable terms for their communication to the public. On the other hand,
Section 31 D establishes a regime for mandatory licensing of works to broadcasting
organizations, with terms determined by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board
(IPAB).

The Plaintiff argues that section 31 (1) (b) does not mandate hearing the copyright
owner each time a compulsory license is granted to eligible parties determined by
the IPAB. Similarly, section 31 D permits the grant of a statutory license without a
hearing for the copyright owner. The crux of the Plaintiff’s petition is that these
impugned provisions fundamentally alter the foundation of the copyright system
by diminishing the incentives for copyright owners to create original content.

The Plaintiff’s grievance is that sections 31 (1) (b) and 31 D would disrupt existing
voluntary license agreements with broadcasters, leading broadcasters to seek
advantageous terms from the IPAB instead of continuing with the voluntary
arrangements. According to the Plaintiff, this renders the provisions arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. By vesting the IPAB with the
authority to formulate compulsory license terms, the provisions intrude upon the
contractual freedom of copyright owners and unreasonably restrict their rights.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff challenges section 31 D, arguing that it removes the

broadcaster-music label relationship from commercial negotiations and allows
broadcasters to use copyrighted content at subsidized and preferential rates. This,
the Plaintiff asserts, unfairly favors broadcasters’ commercial profitability over the
interests of copyright owners. The Plaintiff contends that these provisions diminish
the incentives for copyright owners to produce more original content. Practically,
broadcasters may seek to avoid contractual arrangements with copyright owners
and opt for the statutory licensing route, which is more favorable for them.

Though no responses have been filed yet, if the Petitioner convinces the Supreme
Court, this case would become a landmark judgment by altering the very
foundation of Copyright Law.

CONCLUSION

The issues in digital copyrights present a dynamic and challenging landscape that
demands attention from all stakeholders in the digital age. As technology continues
to evolve, so too must our approach to copyright protection. From combating
rampant digital piracy to navigating the complexities of fair use and DRM, it is
evident that the digital realm requires a well-crafted and adaptable legal
framework.

Enforcement remains a key challenge, as the borderless nature of the internet blurs
jurisdictional lines and makes identifying infringers a daunting task. International
cooperation and harmonization of copyright laws are imperative to address these
challenges effectively.

Moreover, as emerging technologies like AI, blockchain, and virtual reality become
integral to content creation and distribution, it is crucial to ensure that copyright
protection mechanisms keep pace. Striking the right balance between robust
protection and encouraging innovation will be essential to foster a thriving digital
ecosystem.
Education and awareness campaigns play a vital role in equipping both creators
and users with the knowledge needed to navigate the intricacies of digital
copyrights responsibly. Empowering content creators to understand and assert
their rights and educating the public about the importance of respecting copyright
are vital steps in preserving the integrity of creative works.

Ultimately, a collaborative effort is required from governments, tech companies,

content creators, and consumers to address the challenges and craft a sustainable
future for digital copyrights. By fostering an environment that respects intellectual
property while embracing the opportunities that technology offers, we can ensure a
vibrant and diverse digital landscape for generations to come.

As we move forward, it is crucial to strike a delicate balance between the protection

of intellectual property and the promotion of innovation and creative expression.
By doing so, we can build a future where digital copyrights are upheld, creators are
rewarded for their contributions, and users can enjoy a rich and diverse digital
content ecosystem with confidence and respect for one another’s rights.