{"id":8472,"date":"2025-09-10T11:54:10","date_gmt":"2025-09-10T11:54:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/"},"modified":"2025-09-13T05:11:23","modified_gmt":"2025-09-13T05:11:23","slug":"copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/","title":{"rendered":"Copyright Issues in Users &#8211; Generated Content Platforms"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Copyright_%E2%80%94_Artistic_Works_India\"><\/span>Copyright \u2014 Artistic Works (India)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p class=\"lead\">Artistic expression\u2014whether via drawings, photographs, memes, or AI-generated images\u2014is central to online creativity. However, rapid technological advances and user-generated platforms have created a complex battleground for copyright law. Traditional protections for artistic works are being stretched thin as memes proliferate, AI crafts new images, and platforms aggregate content en masse.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Copyright_%E2%80%94_Artistic_Works_India\" >Copyright \u2014 Artistic Works (India)<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Statutory_Framework_and_International_Context\" >Statutory Framework and International Context<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Foundations_of_Artistic_Copyright_in_India\" >Foundations of Artistic Copyright in India<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Memes_Creative_Expression_or_Copyright_Violation\" >Memes: Creative Expression or Copyright Violation?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#AI-Generated_Art_An_Emerging_Frontier\" >AI-Generated Art: An Emerging Frontier<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Tests_of_Originality_in_India\" >Tests of Originality in India<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Skill_and_Labour_Doctrine_Pre-2007\" >Skill and Labour Doctrine (Pre-2007)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Shift_in_Eastern_Book_Company_v_DB_Modak\" >Shift in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Idea%E2%80%93Expression_Dichotomy_and_Substantial_Similarity\" >Idea\u2013Expression Dichotomy and Substantial Similarity<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Moral_Rights_of_Artists\" >Moral Rights of Artists<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Contemporary_Challenges\" >Contemporary Challenges<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Digital_Reproduction\" >Digital Reproduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#AI-Generated_Art\" >AI-Generated Art<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Photography_and_Consent\" >Photography and Consent<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Architecture_and_Design_Overlap\" >Architecture and Design Overlap<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Goals_of_Copyright_in_Artistic_Works\" >Goals of Copyright in Artistic Works<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Loopholes_and_Limitations\" >Loopholes and Limitations<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Suggestions_for_Reform\" >Suggestions for Reform<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-issues-in-users-generated-content-platforms\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p class=\"lead\">This article explores the current landscape in India, focusing first on the legal foundations of copyright for artistic works, then examining challenges posed by memes and AI-generated art, and concluding with strategic recommendations to balance innovation and creators\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n<section class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statutory_Framework_and_International_Context\"><\/span>Statutory Framework and International Context<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the United States, which follows a utilitarian rationale (protecting works to promote \u201cprogress of science and useful arts\u201d), India and continental Europe reflect the civil law emphasis on authors\u2019 rights and moral integrity.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Foundations_of_Artistic_Copyright_in_India\"><\/span>Foundations of Artistic Copyright in India<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Under the Copyright Act of 1957, \u201cartistic works\u201d are specifically protected under Section 2(c), which includes drawings, photographs, paintings, and sculptures\u00a0 . The law grants authors exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt, communicate, or commercially exploit their works\u00a0 .<\/p>\n<p>India also recognises moral rights\u2014notably the right to integrity and attribution\u2014under Section 57. The landmark case <span class=\"case\">Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India<\/span> affirmed that destruction or mutilation of a mural violates an artist\u2019s moral rights, ordering its restoration and awarding damages\u00a0 .<\/p>\n<p>Fair dealing exemptions\u2014under Section 52(1)\u2014allow limited use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism, review, or satire\u00a0 . In <span class=\"case\">Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma<\/span>, Kerala High Court upheld that even substantial reproduction may be permissible if in the public interest, reinforcing flexible application of fair dealing.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Memes_Creative_Expression_or_Copyright_Violation\"><\/span>Memes: Creative Expression or Copyright Violation?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Memes\u2014often humorous or satirical edits of existing images\u2014are ubiquitous in digital culture. Legally, they fall under \u201cartistic works\u201d if based on photographs or drawings\u00a0 . Using copyrighted images without permission typically constitutes infringement, unless covered by a fair dealing defence\u00a0 .<\/p>\n<p>Fair dealing for memes depends on several factors:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Purpose:<\/strong> Recreational, non-commercial uses may favour fair dealing, unlike commercial exploitation\u00a0 .<\/li>\n<li><strong>Nature and Substantiality:<\/strong> Using small or transformative portions helps; borrowing entire frames may infringe\u00a0 .<\/li>\n<li><strong>Market effect:<\/strong> Memes typically don\u2019t compete with original works\u2019 markets, which supports fair dealing\u00a0 .<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Though India lacks monopoly on meme litigation, courts have recognised parody and satire as valid fair dealing, as seen in <span class=\"case\">Civic Chandran<\/span>\u00a0 .<\/p>\n<p>In political contexts, concerns rise: memes used for campaign promotion may not qualify for protection under fair dealing. For instance, <span class=\"case\">Griner v. King<\/span> in the U.S. held that a meme used in political fundraising was not fair use\u00a0 . Indian courts likely would assess such cases closely due to narrower fair dealing provisions\u00a0 .<\/p>\n<p>Thus, memes could be defensible under copyright law\u2014particularly when transformation and humour are central\u2014but clarity remains elusive until litigated.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"AI-Generated_Art_An_Emerging_Frontier\"><\/span>AI-Generated Art: An Emerging Frontier<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>AI tools like MidJourney, DALL\u00b7E, ChatGPT, and others generate images based on vast datasets\u2014raising questions of authorship, originality, and ownership under the 1957 Act.<\/p>\n<p>India\u2019s <a href=\"\/copyright\/register.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Copyright<\/a> Office initially granted a license for a piece co-authored by an AI named \u201cRaghav,\u201d but later revoked it due to lack of human authorship\u00a0 . The law currently defines a human as the \u201cauthor\u201d of machine-generated works under Section 2(d)(vi)\u00a0 . Thus, AI alone cannot hold copyright.<\/p>\n<p>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\u00a0 .<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, India has established an expert panel to review how the 1957 law addresses AI-generated content\u2014spurred by lawsuits from publishers over AI training using copyrighted works without permission\u00a0 .<\/p>\n<p>Internationally, courts like Canada\u2019s have allowed listing AI as co-author if a human programmer plays a significant role\u00a0 .<\/p>\n<p>In India, AI-generated art remains largely unprotected\u2014highlighting an urgent need for legislative reform to clarify authorship, data training use, and licensing.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Tests_of_Originality_in_India\"><\/span>Tests of Originality in India<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Skill_and_Labour_Doctrine_Pre-2007\"><\/span>Skill and Labour Doctrine (Pre-2007)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Earlier Indian courts followed the \u201csweat of the brow\u201d approach, protecting works that involved significant labour, even if little creativity was present. In <span class=\"case\">Macmillan &amp; Co. v. K. &amp; J. Cooper<\/span> (AIR 1924 PC 75), the Privy Council upheld copyright in a selection of passages from classics because of the compiler\u2019s labour and judgment.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Shift_in_Eastern_Book_Company_v_DB_Modak\"><\/span>Shift in <em>Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak<\/em><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Supreme Court in <span class=\"case\">Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak<\/span> (2008) 1 SCC 1 departed from the mechanical labour test. It held that originality requires a \u201cminimal degree of creativity\u201d. Simple copy-editing of judgments without creative input was not enough. However, editorial headnotes and paragraph numbering that involved intellectual effort could attract protection.<\/p>\n<p>This \u201cskill and judgment with creativity\u201d test aligns India more closely with the U.S. decision in <span class=\"case\">Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service<\/span> (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.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Idea%E2%80%93Expression_Dichotomy_and_Substantial_Similarity\"><\/span>Idea\u2013Expression Dichotomy and Substantial Similarity<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The case of <span class=\"case\">R.G. Anand v. Delux Films<\/span> (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.<\/p>\n<p>This principle mirrors international jurisprudence: in <span class=\"case\">Nichols v. Universal Pictures<\/span> (45 F.2d 119, 2d Cir. 1930), Judge Learned Hand articulated the famous \u201cabstraction test\u201d for determining similarity of expression versus unprotectable ideas.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Moral_Rights_of_Artists\"><\/span>Moral Rights of Artists<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>In <span class=\"case\">Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India<\/span> (117 (2005) DLT 717), the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment. The Government had dismantled Sehgal\u2019s bronze mural at Vigyan Bhawan, damaging the work. The Court recognised Sehgal\u2019s right to integrity, holding that even though economic rights had been transferred, his moral rights survived. The Court ordered the restoration of the mural\u2019s remnants and compensation.<\/p>\n<p>Similarly, in <span class=\"case\">Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Motion Pictures Ltd.<\/span> (AIR 1987 Delhi 13), the Court held that film producers could not distort the author\u2019s novel in adaptation, as it violated her moral right of integrity.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Contemporary_Challenges\"><\/span>Contemporary Challenges<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Digital_Reproduction\"><\/span>Digital Reproduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"AI-Generated_Art\"><\/span>AI-Generated Art<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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 \u201carrangements necessary,\u201d but Indian law has no such provision.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Photography_and_Consent\"><\/span>Photography and Consent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>With digital editing and filters, unauthorised manipulations raise new moral rights concerns. Indian law is silent on deepfakes and AI image manipulations.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Architecture_and_Design_Overlap\"><\/span>Architecture and Design Overlap<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Confusion persists between copyright in architectural drawings and protection under the Designs Act, 2000, especially in cases of mass-produced works.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Goals_of_Copyright_in_Artistic_Works\"><\/span>Goals of Copyright in Artistic Works<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Encouraging Creativity \u2013 By ensuring creators receive economic benefits and recognition.<\/li>\n<li>Preserving Cultural Heritage \u2013 Protecting artistic works prevents destruction or derogatory treatment, as in Sehgal.<\/li>\n<li>International Harmonisation \u2013 Aligning with Berne and TRIPS obligations.<\/li>\n<li>Balancing Interests \u2013 Preventing monopolisation of mere ideas while rewarding originality.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Loopholes_and_Limitations\"><\/span>Loopholes and Limitations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Ambiguity in originality tests (\u201cminimal creativity\u201d remains vague).<\/li>\n<li>Lack of clarity on AI-generated works.<\/li>\n<li>Weak online enforcement and takedown mechanisms.<\/li>\n<li>Limited judicial engagement with memes and derivative digital culture.<\/li>\n<li>Potential chilling effect where enforcement is too rigid, stifling public creativity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Suggestions_for_Reform\"><\/span>Suggestions for Reform<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Statutory Clarification of AI Works \u2013 Amend the Act to define authorship of computer-generated artistic works, drawing inspiration from the U.K. model.<\/li>\n<li>Digital Copyright Enforcement \u2013 Create specialised mechanisms for online takedowns, possibly through AI-powered monitoring under DPIIT.<\/li>\n<li>Guidelines for Fair Use in Memes and Parody \u2013 Clearer delineation between fair dealing and infringement.<\/li>\n<li>Strengthening Moral Rights \u2013 Expand Section 57 to cover digital distortions, deepfakes, and unauthorised AI manipulations.<\/li>\n<li>Awareness Campaigns \u2013 Educate artists about registration, licensing, and asserting rights.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>India\u2019s 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\u2019 moral rights.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<p>References:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Copyright Act, 1957 (Bare Act, India Code)<\/li>\n<li>Copyright Rules, 2013 (Ministry of Commerce &amp; Industry, DPIIT) \u2013 https:\/\/copyright.gov.in\/documents\/CopyrightRules1957.pdf<\/li>\n<li>Berne Convention (WIPO) \u2013 https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/treaties\/en\/ip\/berne\/<\/li>\n<li>TRIPS Agreement (WTO) \u2013 https:\/\/www.wto.org\/english\/docs_e\/legal_e\/27-trips_01_e.htm<\/li>\n<li>WIPO Copyright Treaty \u2013 https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/treaties\/en\/ip\/wct\/<\/li>\n<li>Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1<\/li>\n<li>R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118 \u2013 https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1327344\/<\/li>\n<li>Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India, 117 (2005) DLT 717 \u2013 https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1766147\/<\/li>\n<li>Macmillan &amp; Co. Ltd. v. K. &amp; J. Cooper, AIR 1924 PC 75<\/li>\n<li>Academy of General Education v. B. Malini Mallya, (2009) 4 SCC 256 \u2013 https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1354107\/<\/li>\n<li>Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Motion Pictures Ltd., AIR 1987 Delhi 13<\/li>\n<li>Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991) \u2013 https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/499\/340\/<\/li>\n<li>CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada [2004] 1 SCR 339 \u2013 https:\/\/scc-csc.lexum.com\/scc-csc\/scc-csc\/en\/item\/2125\/index.do<\/li>\n<li>Lucasfilm Ltd. v. Ainsworth, [2011] UKSC 39<\/li>\n<li>Copyright Office, Govt. of India \u2013 https:\/\/copyright.gov.in<\/li>\n<li>WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) \u2013 https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/copyright<\/li>\n<li>Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), 1990, 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 106A. Text: https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/17\/106A<\/li>\n<li>Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK), s 9(3). Text: https:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/1988\/48\/section\/9<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Written By: Manasvi Jain<\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Copyright \u2014 Artistic Works (India) Introduction Artistic expression\u2014whether via drawings, photographs, memes, or AI-generated images\u2014is central to online creativity. However, rapid technological advances and user-generated platforms have created a complex battleground for copyright law. Traditional protections for artistic works are being stretched thin as memes proliferate, AI crafts new images, and platforms aggregate content en<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":454,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[1199],"class_list":{"0":"post-8472","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-intellectual-property-law"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8472","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/454"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8472"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8472\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}