Conundrum of effect on Copyright Registration of Correction in Particulars of Work Post Registration

Copyright is a bundle of rights that exist in a tangible work i.e. in a material expression, and existing from the moment, such copyrightable work is created. Though no formalities of a registration process are per se required to avail such rights, it is always advisable to register such work under the Copyright regime, to enhance the value of such work. Such registration also becomes the prima facie evidence of ownership/authorship in case of a dispute.

copyright servicesBut a question that may arise as regards the validity of Copyright Registration is if incorrect information is furnished in the Copyright Application and the same is registered- Would such an inaccuracy render the registration invalid since the time of grant of registration? Would a new Copyright Certificate have to be issued for the work if the incorrect/inaccurate particular is amended?

Under the Indian Copyright regime, The Copyright Act,1957 provides for correction of registered copyright under section 49 by an application to the Registrar. It specifies that corrections may be made to the errors in any name, address, or other “particulars” or for correcting any other error which may have arisen therein by accidental slip or omission.

Further, this change in particulars of registered copyrights has been streamlined by the introduction of Form XV by the Copyright Office,  wherein the copyright owner may just apply for any change in the particulars provided in the original Copyright Application.

These particulars in the understanding of the author refer to those which are mandatory to be filled out in the statement of particulars in the Copyright Application. What if a correction sought to be made is with regards to an essential particular of the work such as country of first publication or a correction is to be made as to the status of the work from unpublished to published at the time of making such Copyright Application. These corrections would have an effect on the essence of the copyright itself. But there is the inadequacy of an explanation as to what changes/corrections may be made after registration without it affecting the validity of the original registration. There is nothing in the copyright manuals addressing what would be an acceptable change in the registration without negating the registration itself, nor is there any explanation in the statute or the rules. Therefore, it could be understood that any particular may be changed post registration without affecting the validity of the original registration in India, with regard to the discretion of the Registrar and depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

With regards to the question in consideration, the US Copyright regime sets a fine example on how to deal with such change in the particulars of the work protected by Copyright Registration owing to inaccuracies in the same and its effect on the original registration. For this purpose, there exists a special type of registration known as Supplementary Registration, which is issued by the US Copyright Office to make such correction or add any additional information to the Basic Registration i.e. is the Copyright Registration. The Supplementary Registration doesn’t replace or cancel the prior registration or the registration number.

This form of registration is applauded by the author for the current scenario as there is a clear delineation of what may be changed and what shall not be changed by such a Supplementary Registration provided clearly in the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices[1] leaving no place for uncertainty unlike in the Indian context.

Certain particulars that may be corrected/addressed by this form of registration are the author’s citizenship, domicile, or the nation of first publication but the Applicant shall have to furnish an explanation for the same.

Further, Section 17 U.S.C. § 411(b) lays down that inaccuracy shall not affect the registration unless: (1) “the inaccurate information was included on the application . . . with the knowledge that it was inaccurate” and (2) “the inaccuracy of the information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration.”

Thus, clear criteria of considerations to judge the inaccuracies and allow for corrections has been duly added in the statute itself to dispel the probability of numerous conflicting approaches on the issue on a case-to-case basis as may be the situation in India.

Further, on this topic of the question of invalidation of registration due to particulars of the application being inaccurate, the US case Gold Value Int’l Textile v. Sanctuary Clothing, LLC, et al., [2]provides further clarity on the applicability of the above provisions. A case of infringement was brought by Fiesta (Gold Value) against Sanctuary. Sanctuary argued that the copyright registration was not valid as Fiesta has incorrectly filed the application with the subject matter as previously unpublished, but the same was incorrect as Fiesta had sold some of the subject matter as samples, Sanctuary argued that the same was, thus,  published. Fiesta pled ignorance of the law as it did not know selling such samples would amount to publishing. District court found copyright registration invalid as ignorance of the law, no excuse. In an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, Court agreed with the invalidation of registration for inaccuracy but not on grounds of ignorance of the law, but held “factual knowledge of such inaccuracy existing ” is important not understanding of law in case of such inaccuracy of particulars in the Application.

The Ninth Circuit Court held, as a legal matter, though, the inclusion of some inaccurate information in a copyright application does not automatically render the registration invalid, rather, to invalidate copyright based on inaccurate information, the claimant must show both that (1) “the inaccurate information was included on the application with the knowledge that it was inaccurate” and (2) “the inaccuracy of the information if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration.” 17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(1)

Since Fiesta was aware of the samples sold, it had the factual knowledge of inaccurate information in the application, in presence of such knowledge the plea of inadvertent “ or “good faith mistake” cannot be made. Thus, factual knowledge of inaccuracy proved, registration invalidated.

In light of the above, it would be advisable to refer to the US model as an effective solution to the lacunas in Indian law regarding the correction of particulars of works post Copyright Registration, to set up a uniform approach towards such corrections, and dissipating the doubts that arise due to the current practice of post-registration correction regarding Copyright, as well as streamlining the correction process as there will be a clear demarcation as to what is allowed to be changed and what is not post Copyright Registration.

Author: Sugandh Shahi, a 5th-year student of BA LLB (Hons.), Amity Law School (Delhi), intern at IIPRD. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at


[1]Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices

[2]Case No. 17-55818 (9th Cir. June 4, 2019) (Steeh, J)

Leave a Reply


  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010