Copyright Infringement occurs when any person, without a licence from the copyright owner or the Registrar of Copyrights, does anything which the copyright owner has the exclusive right to do, or permits for profit any place to be used for the public performance of the work where such performance constitutes infringement. Under Indian law, copyright infringement is defined in Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and attracts both civil remedies (injunction, damages, accounts of profits) and criminal penalties (imprisonment and fine).
Legal definition
The Copyright Act, 1957 defines infringement:
Section 51: Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed — (a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act — (i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or (ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or (b) when any person — (i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or (ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or (iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or (iv) imports into India, any infringing copies of the work.
The exclusive rights that can be infringed vary by the type of work and are defined in Section 14 — including the rights to reproduce, publish, perform, communicate to the public, make adaptations, and make translations.
How courts have interpreted this term
R.G. Anand v. Delux Films [AIR 1978 SC 1613]
The Supreme Court established the fundamental principle that copyright protects expression, not ideas. The Court held that if the same idea is developed differently by two persons independently, there is no infringement. The Court formulated the test: "if a reader, spectator or viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original," infringement is established.
Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak [(2008) 1 SCC 1]
The Supreme Court held that the copy-edited text of judgments — including paragraph numbering, headnotes, and editorial additions — is capable of copyright protection as a derivative work, even though the original judgments (being government works) are in the public domain. The Court applied the "modicum of creativity" test, holding that copyright subsists in the editor's selection, arrangement, and original contribution.
Super Cassettes Industries v. Myspace Inc. [2016 (66) PTC 49 (Del)]
The Delhi High Court (upheld in appeal) held that online intermediaries can be liable for copyright infringement if they have actual knowledge of infringing content and fail to take it down. The Court interpreted Section 51 in light of the Information Technology Act, 2000, holding that the safe harbour provisions under Section 79 IT Act do not protect intermediaries that actively encourage or facilitate infringement.
Types of copyright infringement
- Primary infringement: Direct reproduction, performance, communication to the public, or adaptation of the work without licence (Section 51(a))
- Secondary infringement: Dealing in infringing copies — making, selling, distributing, importing, or exhibiting infringing copies for commercial purposes (Section 51(b))
- Online infringement: Hosting, streaming, or facilitating access to infringing copies through digital platforms, subject to the intermediary liability framework under the IT Act
Why this matters
Copyright infringement is increasingly significant in the digital age, as reproduction and distribution of creative works has become instantaneous and virtually costless. India's creative industries — film, music, publishing, and software — lose substantial revenue to piracy, both physical and digital.
For copyright owners, the Act provides robust enforcement mechanisms. Civil remedies under Section 55 include injunction, damages or account of profits, and delivery up of infringing copies. Criminal remedies under Sections 63-65 include imprisonment of 6 months to 3 years and a fine of Rs 50,000 to Rs 2 lakh. The Copyright Board (now the Appellate Board) has the power to adjudicate disputes relating to licences and royalties.
For alleged infringers, the most important defence is fair dealing under Section 52, which provides a broad catalogue of permitted uses including private study, criticism, review, reporting of current events, judicial proceedings, and educational use. The DU Photocopy case (University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services, 2016) expanded the scope of the educational fair dealing exception.
Related terms
Parent concept:
Related IP concepts:
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between civil and criminal remedies for copyright infringement?
Civil remedies (Section 55) include injunction, damages, and delivery up of infringing copies — the copyright owner files a suit in the District Court or High Court. Criminal prosecution (Sections 63-65) requires filing a complaint with the police or magistrate, and conviction carries imprisonment of 6 months to 3 years and fines. Both remedies can be pursued simultaneously.
Does copyright infringement require proof of copying?
Yes. The plaintiff must establish either direct evidence of copying or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that the defendant had access to the original work and that the two works bear substantial similarity. Independent creation is a complete defence — if the defendant created the work independently without access to the plaintiff's work, there is no infringement even if the works are similar.
Is downloading copyrighted content from the internet infringement?
Yes. Downloading copyrighted content without authorisation constitutes reproduction under Section 14, which is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. However, certain non-commercial uses may fall within the fair dealing exceptions under Section 52, such as private or personal use for research, review, or education.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.