Foibles of Indian Copyright Act, 1957: A Leash on The Unleashed Potential of Creativity

6th March, 2025 - 4:53 am Categories: Intellectual Property 0 Comments

The Copyright Act, 1957, which came into effect on 21^st January 1958 is referred to, by the Indian Parliament as a law to amend and consolidate the law relating to copyright¹. It is the “first pavement of Protection of Authentic Works of Authors in the Independent India.” The instant Act was enacted amidst a significant economic and social upheaval and this served as a turning point in the country’s protection of artistic activities, both by organisations throughout and individuals as well. However, upon navigation the complex labyrinths of the contemporarily evolving creative industry, becomes evident that the Act lacks on various points and is not flawless. This article sets out on a historical journey to examine the development of copyright laws in India from their inception per se. It is of paramount importance to gain priceless insights into the origins of the Act in instance and the rationale behind the enactment of its provisions by delving into the evolutionary prospects and examining successive amendments that have shaped the current legal framework.

In a sphere where the technological marvels rule the availability of paraphrasing and text humanising tools serves as a budding threat to the IPR laws worldwide. By coming up with derivative works that conflate unlawful reproductions with legitimate content, these technologies enable the users to circumvent copyright related protections. Due to which protecting IPR becomes more difficult, requiring creative ways to mitigate the risks that these technical developments present².

Moreover, the continual concerns over the length of copyright protection and the growth of the public domain is one such additional challenge that may hinder the applicability of these pre-existing laws. Extended periods of copyright may seem workable in theories. However, they erroneously and unintentionally prevent access to creative works, which impedes innovation and cross-cultural interaction. On the other hand, the dearth of works in the public domain hampers the production of new artistic endeavours and restricts their availability to a larger. The complexities pertaining to the Act call for careful consideration as we work through their wider implications for consumers, artists, and the larger creative ecosystem. By identifying the underlying causes of these issues, we can set out to investigate reforms and remedies that might be used to strike a careful balance between defending the rights of the creators and promoting an innovative and imaginative culture of creativity in India. By working together and making wise decisions about policy, we can steer the creative environment in the direction of something more vibrant and inclusive that benefits all the parties.

EVOLUTION OF COPYRIGHT LAWS IN INDIA

After the British government enacted the Copyright Act of 1847 during the colonial era, copyright rules were for the very first time introduced in Indian regions. The legislation, which primarily served the colonial economic goal, left Indian creators completely unprotected while being designed to protect the Interests of British Authors and Publishers³. India began with working on its own legal system to protect IPR, after the colonial Independence. By providing legal protection to the Indian writers, innovators, and artists which represented a dramatic shift from the laws of the colonial era and aided to foster an environment that was conductive to creativity and innovative attempts throughout the country.

The Act has been revised over due course of time to address developing issues and concerns and bring it into compliance with international norms⁴. Interestingly, the 1994 amendment addressed issues like digital piracy and unauthorised reproduction of intellectual works by adopting provisions to accommodate digital technology in response to changes in the worldwide copyright sphere and technological breakouts.

These initiatives seek to effectively satisfy the needs of producers, consumers, and society at large while also addressing newer issues in light. Maintaining a lively and dynamic creative environment requires striking a compromise between defending intellectual property rights and enabling access to information and culture. India can lead the way towards a more inclusive copyright law that unleashes the full potential of its creative industries through continued discourse, collaboration, and well-informed policies.

EXISTING FOIBLES IN THE ACT

The Indian Copyright Act of 1957 comprises of varied shortcomings which highlight and signify a no. of issues that limit the applicability in the contemporary creative realm⁵. Questions pertaining to interpretation regarding basic notions such as “originality” and “infringement” have become abundant, frequently resulting in contentious disputes and protracted legal disputes. The natural flow of innovation and new ideas are hampered by this lack of clarity, which emphasizes the necessity of specific and unambiguous rules within the Act.

3.1 Ambiguous realm of “originality” & “infringement”

The Indian IPR regulations have major lackings that make it difficult to protect creators’ rights and promote innovation, specifically the terminologies like “originality” and “infringement” are not clear enough due to the ambiguity of the act about what originality means. Different interpretations can lead to differing opinions and legal conflicts regarding the authenticity of creative minds and their works. This ambiguity not only makes creators less confident in defending their rights but also inhibits development of new ideas.

Moreover, the act’s ambiguity about what constitutes an infringement makes it harder to enforce copyright laws. Different legal experts and court of laws have differing views of what actually constitutes infringement per se. Due to the reason of absence of any lucid lines upon the subject matter. As a result of which, the artist finds themselves negotiating murky waters, unclear of whether their rights have been infringed upon or not. This ambiguity makes it an even more resilient task for law enforcement organizations to identify and prosecute copyright violators since there are no clear standards in place.

It is also pertinent to note that the uncertainty around “originality” and “infringement” intensifies in the digitalized timeline, as the distinctions between original works and derivative content become astoundingly hazy. Determining the origin and ownership of creative works becomes more resilient and tough due to the broad availability of digital tools for content creation and alteration.

3.2 Paraphrasing Tools: a greater challenge in the digitalized era

The Indian Copyright Act of 1957 has significant weaknesses, especially when it comes to handling the development of paraphrase tools—a challenging task in the digital age. These technologies allow users to create derivative works that frequently conflate original material with infringement. Therefore, circumventing copyright regulations. Consequently, in an era where tech has made everything easier than ever to manipulate and replicate creative works, the act faces considerable challenges in properly protecting IPR.

Finding the line between what constitutes infringement and the degree of originality is one of the main issues with paraphrasing tools. By changing the entire structure or phrases altogether of pre-existing works for paraphrasing, frequently produces new copies of those works in contrast to classic forms of infringement. This complicates the enforcement attempts under the Act by making it difficult to determine whether the resulting content qualifies as a derivative or as a completely new product altogether.

3.3 Emerging issues in the form of duration of copyright protection and public domain

There exists significant lackings in the Indian IPR Framework of 1957 when it comes to providing for concerns like length of copyright protection and growth under public sphere. In contemporary world inclined towards creativity, these unanticipated concerns are mostly common and weigh as a serious barrier to the Act’s efficacy. Generally, the duration for creative works is one of the most important issues. For protecting the rights holders, the Act usually extends copyright for several decades after the creator’s passing. However, this continued protection unintentionally limits access to the works, which prevents remixing, adaption, and other transformative applications⁶.

This restriction inhibits the growth of fresh artistic endeavours and limits cross-cultural interaction. Conversely, there are problems with the Act’s treatment of the public domain, where artistic creations are no longer covered by copyright. For creators, the public domain is a creative fountainhead that stimulates creativity. Act restrictions, however, may cause works to take longer to become public domain, which would hinder the production of new works and restrict access to cultural assets.

Conclusively, it can be inferred by the analysis drawn by the author that the provisions of Indian law with respect to IPR, does not define the most prominent terms like “originality” and “infringement” in a clear and literal manner and hence it creates the matter of ambiguity as it does not cover the spectrum of paraphrasing tools. The author has above mentioned about the qualifications of any act becoming “infringement” in regards to Indian IPR laws and which results into the exclusion of infringement in the form of paraphrasing tool and it creates the major problem, the rising prevalence of paraphrasing tools on the internet makes it alarming for the IPR laws as the people are taking advantage out of the ambiguity resulted through the intent of law.

The author suggests for reformation of the IPR laws and broadening the scope of the aforementioned terms as it will prevent the exploitation of the laws, it is not new for the Indian citizens to exploit any law which has certain ambiguity and the same has been the situation of IPR laws as well and it will definitely lead to certain level of exploitation. It is suggested by the author that either the courts shall take cognizance in this matter or the legislature shall take certain steps to reform and amend the laws as any law shall be reformed as per the contemporary issues and hindrances and the same shall be done with IPR laws as well.

Author: Sanya Pandey, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

REFERENCES

[1] Preamble, The Copyright Act, 1957.

^{2 & 4} Dinesh Kadam, ACADEMIC INTEGRITY, AND PLAGIARISM: THE NEW REGULATIONS IN INDIA, Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery Volume 51 Issue 2, Pg- 109, August 2018.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328758814_Academic_integrity_and_plagiarism_The_new_regulations_in_India

³ Shamnad Basheer & Pankhuri Agarwal, INDIA’S NEW IP POLICY: A BARE ACT? Indian Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 13, Iss. 2, Article 1, Pg- 07, 2017. https://repository.nls.ac.in/ijlt/vol13/iss2/1/

5 Sumeet Handa & Kishor Bhatt, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR) IN DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT: AN OVERVIEW IN INDIAN DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT, International Journal of Digital Library Services, Vol.- 55, Issue- 22, Pg- 14, April-June 2015. http://www.ijodls.in/uploads/3/6/0/3/3603729/vol-5_issue-2.117-123.pdf

6 Lawrence Liang, EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS IN INDIAN COPYRIGHT LAW FOR EDUCATION: AN ASSESSMENT, The Law and Development Review,  Volume 3, Number 2, 2010.

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.2202/1943-3867.1058/pdf?srsltid=AfmBOorcj0pzAhbIpS9NGOwhSlu__Y5MFqK0CwuCrPQTtP43NfbZuBs_