Copyright in Training Content: Securing Reusable Rights in the Digital Age

Introduction : Corporate training materials, such as training videos, employee manuals, e-learning modules, and interactive simulations, require a substantial investment of time, money, and intellectual resources. As organisations continue to convert their training systems into digital formats and use materials in decentralized office locations and online learning management systems, it becomes important to identify who owns the rights to such activities. The complexity arises from the involvement of multiple parties in the process of creating training materials. An internal instructional designer might write the script, a freelance videographer is responsible for filming the training sessions, actors perform the parts in role plays in the course of training activities, and background music is worked on during the post-production phase. Every contributor may have a different copyright interest, thereby limiting the ability of organizations to reuse, change, or share the content that it has financed and created without a sound contract.

This blog aims at discussing the laws that govern copyright rights related to educational materials according to Indian legislation while providing a comparative insight into the US judicial practice and international treaties. The statutory standards on the original copyright ownership established by law will be discussed here, as well as the doctrine of works made during employment, the instruments for effective assignment and licensing, and specifics of performers’ rights. Important court cases will also be analyzed to show how courts have ruled in conflicts over employee-created or commissioned works in different cases. The concluding part of this blog will provide helpful recommendations for companies to ensure that they get strong and lasting rights in the materials they use for training.

Legal Provisions

The principle law dealing with Copyright in India is Copyright Act, 1957 (Act No. 14 of 1957) together with Copyright Rules, 2013 as amended. Section 13 mentions the different types of works for which copyright exists. Section 13(1)(a) refers to original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works; Section 13(1)(b) refers to cinematograph films; and Section 13(1)(c) refers to sound recordings. A training manual will qualify as a literary work, while depending on its design an e-learning module will be treated as either a literary work or a dramatic work. A training video will qualify as a cinematograph film, while the background audio may qualify as a sound recording depending on its nature. The rights under Section 14 specify the different exclusive rights given in respect of different classes of works including reproduction, communication to the public and adaptation, and these rights come into play when training materials are modified, disseminated and redeveloped.

Section 17 is the critical clause regarding initial ownership of copyright but requires a careful consideration of its provisions since they refer to different cases. In accordance with the provisions of this section, the author is recognized as the original owner of copyright, subject to the exceptions specified in subsequent clauses. Sub-clause (a) of the section is concerned with specific literary works and artistic creations designed by the author while being under the contract of employment with the owner of a newspaper, magazine, or similar publication for the purpose of publishing them in such publication; it does not refer to simple creation of the training materials by employee. Sub-clause (b) addresses specific commissioning works, including photographs, paintings, portraits, engravings, and cinematograph films, created against payment upon the demand of another person, giving initial ownership to the party that had commissioned works unless there is another agreement. Clause (c) states the general rule of employment whereby the employer becomes the primary owner of copyright in the cases of creation of any works in the process of employment under the conditions of a labor contract or apprenticeship unless clauses (a) and (b) are applicable in this case. It is a significant point that Article 17 includes a protective clause related to the author’s rights of base works included in the cinematography film, meaning that Articles 13, 17, 18, and 19 have to be interpreted in combination to determine the rights to the training video, its script, and soundtrack. 

Section18 grants an individual or organization the right to assign completely or partly the copyright in the future or at present. It addresses specifically the assignment of the copyright to the future products and includes the provision on the rights to exploit methods of distribution of the works that were unknown when the assignment was made. It is highly relevant for the development of the digital classes that can be used on platforms that did not exist at the moment of signing the contract. Section 19 states that the assignment has to be made in writing, signed by the assignor of the right, and indicate the work, the rights assigned, as well as their term, area of action, and the royalties or other payment. Under section 19(5) it follows that where no period of the assignment is mentioned, it is understood as five years from the date of the assignment; this is a fallback position which is invoked when the parties are silent regarding the duration, and it does not introduce a statutory period of five years. Moreover, under section 19(6), it is accepted that an assignment made without any territory would refer to India only, which has a clear impact on the multinationals providing the training materials all over the world. Section 30 gives the owner of copyrights the possibility to grant any interest in the right by way of licensing and in writing signed by him personally or his representative, which creates an opportunity for licensing third-party materials rather than assigning them.

The rights of performers can be found in sections 38 and 38A of the Copyright Act. Section 38 provides for the existence of the right of a performer in his performance, while section 38A deals with exclusive rights of performers. The first subsection of section 38A has a list of rights that performers have in relation to their recordings, reproducing and broadcasting as well as communicating their performances to the public.Sub -  section 38A(2) has legal consequences when a performer gives his consent in writing to the use of his performance in the cinematic film, which is more complex than saying that there should be a separate assignment in all cases. Section 51 defines infringement of copyright, including unlawful reproduction, distribution and communication of the work. Clause 52(1)(i) describes a limited exception for reproducing work by an instructor or student as part of the learning process,¹⁸ though it should be noted that whether a specific corporate training activity truly falls under this clause will depend on particular circumstances of the situation and the nature of the law. Companies also should not assume that this article allows them to freely reproduce and distribute works owned by other individuals. Clause 2(d)(vi) notes that a person who creates a work by means of a computer program is the author of it, although whether this rule can be applied to modern generative AI technologies is unclear. In its turn, the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026, which became effective as a result of the relevant Copyright Modification Provisions Act as of June 15, 2026, excluded the phrase concerning the punishment for some false copyright statements.

Legal Analysis

The primary legal issues regarding the ownership of training materials revolve around the distinction between works produced under a contract of employment and those produced under a contract for services. This distinction determines whether an employer automatically has first ownership rights under Section 17(c), or whether an assignment must be made under Sections 18 and 19. For example, if a full-time employee who is either an instructional designer or a subject-matter expert produces a training manual as part of his/her normal duties, Section 17(c) will provide for first ownership to the employer unless there has been an agreement to the contrary. It should be noted that Section 17(a) is misapplied in this situation. The section only covers works intended for publishing purposes, such as newspapers and magazines, and does not apply to regular training materials produced by the employee. The "course of employment" as defined by Section 17(c) is not boundless. If the employee creates an independent learning module based on a topic not in their job description using personal resources and time, the employer's assertion of ownership loses legal ground. Additionally, the lack of an explicit and precise provision on intellectual property in the employment contract further increases the risk in this situation.

When a firm hires an outside vendor such as a video production company or an e-learning development company, the interaction is usually controlled by a contract for the provision of services. Pursuant to Section 17(b), the commissioning party may be the first owner of the commissioned cinematograph film, which means that valuable remuneration has been made and no contrary terms exist. However, it follows from this that the commissioning organization is not by definition the owner of every right in the product of the video. The exception set out in Section 17 and the separate existence of copyright in the works means that getting ownership of the film does not in itself imply that one gets ownership of the script, music, sound recordings, graphics, and used previous works. Some of these rights may belong to the commissioning party anyway due to law, while others require obtaining a license or a transfer depending on the specific situation and contracts. For this reason, firms should clarify the ownership and licensing for each part involved and should not take for granted the fact that money was paid for the entire product.

Actors who appear in training videos are protected under Sections 38 and 38A of the Copyright Act. Section 38A(1) provides performers with exclusive rights regarding the recording, reproduction, and communication of their performance. Section 38A(2) makes specific provisions for cases where a performer consents in writing to having their performance included in a cinematic film. It is important to look at the impact of such written consent along with details of the relevant contract for each situation. It is also important for businesses to ensure that performer clearance forms are properly prepared and that the recording, reproduction, editing and communication are allowed. At the same time, including someone else’s music without necessary licenses is considered an infringement according to Section 51. Licensing in this case should differentiate between the copyright for a musical piece and for music recording and whether synchronization and master-use licenses need to be obtained.

The provisions concerning territorial and medium-specific nature of copyright assignments defined in Section 19 create practical issues for reuse in different offices as well as platforms. According to Section 19(6), assignments which do not mention a territorial range are considered as assignments only within India which implies that an agreement that is silent concerning the territory does not allow for loading of the same clip to an international learning management system that is open for the employees in different jurisdictions. Organizations have to come to the agreements which explicitly encompass all the territories and platforms which are planned for usage, as stipulated in Section 18 concerning the future forms of exploitation. If we look at this issue from a comparative perspective, we can say that the "work made for hire" doctrine in the USA under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 201(b) stipulates that the works which were done by employees when they were executing their direct job duties may be regarded as works made for hire but commissioned projects executed by freelancers will be regarded only if the provided forms strictly satisfy nine categories indicated in law and there is an express agreement in writing. This doctrine of the US law acts merely as a reference point for comparison without determining the law of ownership in India. However, it is useful for Indian businesses employing foreign companies in e-learning development in determining the importance of contracts and the understanding of the difference between employees and independent contractors.

Case Laws

In the case of V.T. Thomas v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., the Kerala High Court took up the important issue of whether a cartoonist employed by the newspaper retains copyright in works created before he worked for the newspaper. The court, in its prima facie comments indicated that the works created prior to the commencement of employment belong to the author, and it is only the work done during the term of employment under an employment contract that belongs to the employer under Section 17. This decision needs to be understood in the sense that it does not constitute a conclusive answer to the entire set of issues related to Copyright in the case. However, it does show a particular approach to determining the possible boundaries of employment related copyright issues.

In the case of Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak ((2008) 1 SCC 1) the Supreme Court of India settled the issue of the degree of originality necessary to qualify for copyright, introducing a "modicum of creativity" test instead of accepting the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. The Supreme Court made it clear that simply investing time and money in the production of a work is not enough and that it needs some degree of creativity. While dealing with the issues of the original content this means that collections of objective information or simple copies of laws in compliance handbooks cannot be protected, while original educational texts, exercises based on situations, and artistic designs can be protected. However, it does not imply that any collection of information lacks copyright protection automatically; the scrutiny has to be done on the basis of the degree and nature of creative contribution made, included skills, and judgements used while choosing and arranging the material.

The Supreme Court reiterated the concept of idea-expression dichotomy in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) 4 SCC 118, and stated that copyright protects expression of ideas not the idea, theme, subject or historical fact itself. The Court laid down various propositions including the principle that where the same idea is expressed in different ways, similarities are bound to occur due to the common source. In the context of training material, this means that the specific training video or manual are protected under copyright but the underlying educational concept such as the module on workplace harassment would not. Competitors may build their own training materials addressing the same topics in terms of context and manner of presentation, as long as the expression is not the same and the result is neither a verbatim nor an insignificant reproduction of the original. In Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (490 U.S. 730 (1989)), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that determining whether a work is one created "for hire" is dependent on the fact whether the creator is an employee, as determined according to the common law of agency through some multi-factor test of the right of the employer to control the process of creation of the work.

Practical Implications

The legal complexities discussed above have important implications for businesses of all sizes. Tightening copyright compliance internationally carries the risk of copyright loopholes in the system. For example, the presumption that any copyright agreement applies only to India if no other territory is specifically mentioned means that multinational corporations may be facing some problems. Businesses organized in a way to outsource e-learning production at low cost may discover at a later stage that they lack the rights to alter or rebrand their own training content, depending on the wording of the original contract with freelance content producers. With the advent of the content produced with the help of AI tools another problem arises. According to the Copyright Act, as per Section 2(d)(vi), the author of the work created by the computer is said to be the person who caused the work to be created, yet it remains unclear how this provision works with the modern means of AI technology.

In order to solve the issue of the author right ownership of the digital works composed of many parts, which include interactive e-learning modules that contain elements, consisting of text, video, audio, code, and user-interface design, the law should be clarified. Although the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 increased the number of legal rights by the performers and introduced moral rights, it did not address the fragmentation problem, which might occur when creating multimedia tutorials. Recent industry statistics demonstrate that more and more companies include clauses related to intellectual property rights into contracts with vendors and request the creators of the multimedia materials to sign detailed consent forms. The assignment agreements should state the specific types of the works being assigned, the length of the assignment, the territory, etc. It should be noted that Section 19(5) establishes a default assignment period of 5 years, and Section 18 of the Copyright Act allows for future assignments.

Conclusion

Copyright issues related to the training material are quite intricate and require some anticipation at the stage of drafting contracts. While the provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 as presented in Sections 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 30, 38, 38A, 51 and 52 provide a good foundation, the default statutory provisions often lead to outcomes contrary to what may be expected commercially. This means that employers cannot rely on a presumption of ownership of content created by its employees, given the provisions of Section 17(a) and generally Section 17(c). On the other hand, commissioning parties cannot presume that paying for the completion of a training video will automatically entitle them to use all materials used in the video without paying extra. Instead, companies need to have proper forward-looking contracts that address all possible parties, works, territories and platforms and clarify ownership and licensing status of all materials rather than having a blanket assumption. Moreover, introducing regulations clarifying the status of composite digital works and AI-generated content will strengthen the entire legal framework of India's rapidly growing corporate e-learning sector.

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

References

1. The Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, §§ 2(d)(vi), 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 30, 38, 38A, 51, 52, India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/indiacode/handle/123456789/1367.

2. The Copyright Rules, 2013, as amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2021, https://ipindia.gov.in/copyright-rules.

3. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1 (June 5, 2026), https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2026/273214.pdf.

4. 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 201(b) (2024), https://www.copyright.gov/title17/.

5. V.T. Thomas v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., AIR 1988 Ker 291 (Kerala H.C.) (interlocutory order), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1434059/.

6. Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1062099/.

7. R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1734007/.

8. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/730/.

9. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Sept. 9, 1886, as revised at Paris, July 24, 1971, 1161 U.N.T.S. 3, https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/283698.