Understanding Fair Dealing in India

The use of brief extracts or short clips from news broadcasts and other protected content has become commonplace on internet platforms, which have transformed public opinion and how we consume information in the digital age. This practice sits at the junction of freedom of expression and copyright protection, even as it promotes a vibrant information ecology. A recent conflict between online commentators and a major news agency has raised concerns about the applicability of India’s “fair dealing” philosophy in the digital sphere. With an emphasis on brief news reporting and online commentary clips that are backed by court rulings, this article explores fair dealing under Indian copyright law and provides advice for handling copyright concerns by law firm in Ahmedabad or any other law firm.

Section 52 of the Copyright Act 

Acts that do not violate copyright are listed in Section 52 of the Copyright Act of 1957. For those who provide news and commentary content, two clauses are essential:

• A work may be “fairly dealt with” for “criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work,” according to Section 52(1)(a)(ii).
• “Fair dealing” is permitted for “the reporting of current events and current affairs, including the reporting of a lecture delivered in public,” according to Section 52(1)(a)(iii).

Importantly, “fair dealing” is defined by Indian law as being purpose-specific. In contrast to the US “fair use” theory, Indian law stipulates that the fair dealing defense can only be used if the usage is in line with one of the listed purposes of Section 52.

Aspects that make a “Fair” Dealing

The Purpose and Character of the Use:

• Does the usage fit under an approved purpose category (review, criticism, or reporting on current affairs)?
• Is it for commercial, non-profit, or educational purposes? Although commercial use may be harmful to equity, it is not always prohibited, particularly when it has transformational potential.
• Does the use change things? Instead of just copying the original, a transformative usage gives it new meaning or insight. For example, re-uploading a news clip with little commentary isn’t transformative; using it for analysis or counter-narrative is.

The Nature of the Copyrighted Work:

• Fair dealing applies more liberally to factual works like news reports than to highly creative works, due to public interest in disseminating facts.

The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used:

• This involves quantitative (length of clip) and qualitative (importance of the portion) assessment. Using a small portion can be substantial if it’s the “heart of the work.”
• No fixed numerical limits exist. The necessity of the amount for the transformative purpose is key.

The Effect of the Use on the Potential Market or Value of the Copyrighted Work:

• If the new use substitutes the original, harming its market, it’s less likely fair. Uses that critique or comment, potentially driving viewers to the original, are less likely seen as harmful.

The “Substantiality” Conundrum

There are no maximum clip durations imposed by Indian law. “Substantiality” is mostly a qualitative concept. If a brief video catches the spirit of the original, it may be infringing. If it is necessary for transformative critique and not a market alternative, a lengthier portion might be justified.

De Minimis Use:

Because of the de minimis theory, the law ignores inconsequential details. It may not be possible to take legal action for some minor usage of protected content. This has occasionally been used by Indian courts, particularly for brief, incidental uses that are unlikely to affect the original work’s value. Short music clips in the news could be minimal if they are incidental and uncommercial. 

Simplicity by itself, however, is not a guarantee; if a brief extract catches the spirit of the work, it may violate. It can be difficult to distinguish between minor use and serious infringement online, since short extracts are common, and automated moderation frequently overlooks these subtleties. Even the smallest parts should be used with care by creators to ensure that context conveys incidental, non-substantial intent.

Platform-level copyright enforcement

YouTube’s Content ID is one example of a platform-level copyright enforcement system that looks for content protected by copyright. These algorithms may flag valid transformative uses since they have trouble with context-dependent fair dealing evaluations. Concerns regarding abuse of the takedown procedure have been raised by allegations that certain rights holders may exploit platform systems (issuing strikes and demanding payment for withdrawal) despite a legitimate fair dealing defense.

Conclusion

The way copyright law is applied in the ever-changing digital world is still changing. Fair dealing is a crucial exception, but its limits are frequently pushed. Recent conflicts highlight the necessity of knowledgeable producers, ethical rights enforcement, and improved platform mechanisms to account for the complexity of fair dealing.

  Categories : patent law
  Tags : Digital Media Rights , Fair Dealing , Indian Copyright Law , Law Firm in Ahmedabad