Scope of Fair Use in the Indian Film Industry : A Critique Post Rakshit Shetty Case

Introduction : Recently, in March 2026, Delhi High Court (“HC”) presided by Justice Tejas Karia in MRT Music v. Paramvah Studios (“Rakshit Shetty Judgement”) passed an injunction ordering Parmavah Studios to pay for the unauthorized use of two songs in his film. While the musical usage was very minimal, Studio was strictly held liable for copyright infringement and willful disobedience. It raised pertinent questions on principles of fair usage : Whether the strict approach adopted by Delhi HC has unduly narrowed the scope of fair use under the Copyright Act ?

The author critically analyses the judgement and reasoning adopted by the Delhi High Court evaluating the difference of ambit it has brought. It explores the evolving scope of fair use within the Indian film industry. The blog further evaluates the practical implications of the judgment on filmmakers. Lastly, the blog proposes plausible suggestions to inculcate in the current framework.

Legal Framework

While Section 14(d)(i)(A) of the Copyright Act prevents making a copy of the film, including a photograph of any image forming part thereof. On the other hand, lies the doctrine of fair usage under Section 52 of the Act. It permits limited use of work protecting both economic interests and fair dealing. Further, Section 52(1)(u) recognises the defence of incidental inclusion, but the scope remains narrow.

Substantiating the contradiction, Rakshit Shetty Judgement illustrates the limitations of this framework. Delhi HC adopted a strict interpretation of the statute. It reinforced that even minimal or brief use of copyrighted music without authorisation would not fall within the ambit of fair dealing. The Court confined its analysis to the statutory exceptions under Section 52. It did not expand their scope to accommodate evolving creative practices. This approach underscores the inherently rigid nature of the Indian framework which has been again emphasized by the judgement.

Critical Analysis of the Judgement

Judgements show a very strict interpretation of the Copyright Act negating the established legal doctrines. The principle of ‘de minimis’ (“De Minimis”) has not been well considered by the Rakshit Shetty judgement. The principle was substantiated in Indian jurisdiction by India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. Yashraj Films Private Limited. It excludes trivial or insignificant use from being treated as infringement. Strict interpretation by the court in the present case has diluted the essence of the doctrine. De minimis is necessary to highlight hereby since it prevents unnecessary and long held litigation over negligible uses.

The concept of transformative use has also not been adhered to. It was established in 1994 in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music. It refers to works that transform pre-existing work to create something new and original. It should not merely be a substitute for pre-existing work and should include some skill. This omission by Rakshit Shetty Judgement is significant because transformative use allows courts to distinguish between mere reproduction and creative reworking of a work. By failing to undertake this inquiry, the judgment adopts a rigid and formalistic approach overlooking the evolving nature of filmmaking.

Incidental Inclusion Doctrine is also narrowly construed. The judgement does not account for practical realities. Eg: Films may inculcate background elements (music playing in public spaces) that could be captured unintentionally. Through negating this principle, it can increase the compliance burden on filmmakers.

Furthermore, absence of a structured interpretative framework or guiding principles adds up to the legal uncertainty. In jurisdictions such as the United States (“USA”), the courts have adopted multi-factor tests under the U.S. Copyright Act that they consistently follow across their jurisdiction. On the other hand, the Indian approach remains fragmented and heavily dependent on judicial discretion. Instead of advancing clarity, HC through the present judgment reinforces a rigid precedent. It also does not present any nuanced guidance for future cases.

Suggestion and Conclusion

In the present judgement, a more progressive and balanced approach is required. A “Hybrid Fair Use Framework” is substantiated below to address the concerns.

Firstly, Section 52(1)(za) could be inserted mentioning general fair use standards. It could inculcate factors like: (i) purpose and character of use (including transformative use); (ii) nature of the work; (iii) amount and substantiality used and (iv) effect on the market. It would transform Section 52 from an exhaustive list to a dynamic one helping courts assess fairness holistically. 

Secondly, doctrines of de minimis and incidental use should be expressly recognized. A threshold-based approach protecting trivial, background, or fleeting use would prevent disproportionate liability for insignificant incorporations.

Thirdly, a streamlined licensing ecosystem inculcating: (i) a single-window digital licensing platform; (ii) standardised royalty rates; and (iii) time-bound clearances is the need of the hour. Currently, negotiations with multiple stakeholders are required for obtaining licenses. A unified digital platform would centralise access to rights and make the process much easier. Standardised royalty rates would minimize arbitrary pricing and disparities. Time-bound clearance would prevent delay in film releases adhering with production deadlines. It thus facilitates smoother content creation. Amendments to Section Sections 30 to 31D could help introduce more structured mechanisms. It could be complemented by the adoption of blockchain-based rights management systems.

Fourthly, courts should adopt harmonious and consistent interpretative guidelines minimizing uncertainty. The United States, under the U.S. Copyright Act, follows an open-ended fair use doctrine guided by a four-factor test. It allows courts to accommodate transformative and minimal uses even in commercial contexts. Similarly, Canada has adopted a liberal interpretation of fair dealing through judicial decisions like CCH Canadian Ltd. V. Law Society of Upper Canada.

Through the above substantiation, it becomes very clear that the strict approach as adopted in the judgement could not address the contemporary challenges of content creation. A more nuanced and flexible approach is required herein.

Author: Khushi Jain, 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.

Endnotes

1. MRT Music v. Paramvah Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Delhi High Court, Judgment dated 18 March 2026 (Justice Tejas Karia) (addressing unauthorized use of copyrighted musical works in a cinematographic film and interpreting the scope of statutory exceptions under the Copyright Act, 1957).

2. The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14 of 1957 (India), particularly Sections 14, 30–31D, and 52, as amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 (governing copyright ownership, licensing, fair dealing, and incidental inclusion in India).

3. India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1702 (Delhi High Court) (recognizing and applying the de minimis doctrine in Indian copyright law while identifying factors for determining trivial infringement).

4. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (United States Supreme Court) (landmark decision recognizing transformative use as a central consideration in determining fair use under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act).

5. CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339 (Supreme Court of Canada) (holding that fair dealing is a "user's right" and adopting a liberal, purposive interpretation of copyright exceptions, influencing comparative copyright jurisprudence).