Seizing Control: The Legal Fate of Infringing Copyright Materials

When someone pirates a book, prints counterfeit music CDs, or distributes unauthorized copies of a film, the immediate instinct is to think of injunctions and damages. But Indian copyright law goes a step further – it makes a bold legal claim: those infringing copies do not belong to the infringer. They belong to the copyright owner. This principle, embedded in Section 58 of the Copyright Act, 1957, shifts the ground on which copyright disputes are fought, and understanding it is essential for anyone studying intellectual property law in India.

The core rule: infringing copies belong to the copyright owner 🔗

Section 58 of the Copyright Act, 1957 lays down a striking legal premise. All infringing copies of any work in which copyright subsists – along with all plates used or intended to be used for producing such copies – are deemed to be the property of the copyright owner. The word “deemed” here is significant. It is a legal fiction. The law treats those copies as if they already belong to the copyright owner, regardless of who physically possesses them.

The practical consequence of this is two-fold. First, the copyright owner can initiate proceedings for the recovery of possession of those infringing copies. Second, the owner can seek a remedy in respect of conversion – essentially treating the infringer’s unauthorized dealing with those copies as a tortious interference with the owner’s property.

What is “conversion” in this context? 🔗

Conversion, in civil law, refers to the wrongful act of dealing with another’s property in a manner inconsistent with the true owner’s rights – whether by taking possession of it, selling it, or otherwise exercising dominion over it without authority. Since Section 58 deems infringing copies to be the copyright owner’s property, any infringer who possesses, sells, or distributes those copies is legally treating someone else’s property as their own. That is the essence of conversion. The copyright owner can then sue for damages arising from this tortious act, in addition to seeking the return of the copies themselves.

What counts as an “infringing copy”? 🔗

Under the Copyright Act, 1957, an infringing copy is one that has been made in violation of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. This includes unauthorized reproductions of literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. The term “plates” used in Section 58 has a broad definition under the Act – it covers blocks, moulds, matrices, transfers, negatives, or any other device used or intended to be used for printing or reproducing copies of a work. So the law does not just target the finished pirated product – it also captures the instruments of production.

For infringement to occur under Section 51 of the Act, someone must do – without the licence of the copyright owner – something that only the owner has the exclusive right to do. This includes making copies for sale or hire, distributing copies in a way that prejudices the owner’s interests, exhibiting infringing copies in public by way of trade, or importing such copies into India.

Exceptions to the rule: when the copyright owner loses the remedy 🔗

The power granted under Section 58 is significant, but it is not absolute. The proviso to Section 58 carves out two key exceptions where the copyright owner is not entitled to a remedy for conversion – even though the copies in question are technically deemed to be the owner’s property.

Exception 1: Lack of awareness about copyright subsistence 🔗

The first exception applies where the person in possession of the infringing copies proves that they were not aware, and had no reasonable ground to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work at all. This is sometimes called the “innocent infringer” defence. If the defendant can establish genuine ignorance – not just claimed ignorance – of the very existence of copyright in the work, the court will deny the owner a remedy for conversion.

This exception places a significant evidentiary burden on the infringer. Mere assertion of ignorance is insufficient. The court will look at whether a reasonable person in those circumstances would have had grounds to suspect that copyright existed. Given that copyright in India arises automatically upon creation of an original work – without any registration requirement – this defence is not easily established in practice. Still, commentators have noted that this exception can, in certain circumstances, tilt the balance in the defendant’s favour.

Exception 2: Reasonable belief that the copies did not involve infringement 🔗

The second exception is subtly different. Here, the person in possession may acknowledge that copyright exists in the work – but claims to have had reasonable grounds for believing that the specific copies or plates in question did not actually infringe any copyright. This could arise, for instance, where the defendant genuinely believed they were dealing with licensed or authorised copies, or where the legal status of the copies was genuinely ambiguous at the time.

Again, “reasonable grounds” is the operative test – the belief must be objectively justifiable, not merely self-serving. If the defendant establishes this, the owner is denied the remedy for conversion under Section 58, though other remedies such as injunction may still be available under Section 55.

The architecture exception under Section 59 🔗

One of the most practically important limitations on Section 58 arises not from its own proviso, but from an entirely separate provision – Section 59 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which deals with works of architecture.

Section 59(1) provides that where the construction of a building or other structure that infringes – or would, if completed, infringe – the copyright in some other work has already commenced, the copyright owner is not entitled to obtain an injunction to restrain the construction, nor can they seek an order for demolition of the building. Section 59(2) goes further: it expressly states that nothing in Section 58 shall apply in respect of the construction of such a building or structure.

This exception reflects a pragmatic policy judgment. Once bricks are laid and construction is underway, forcing demolition would cause disproportionate harm – financial waste, disruption, and social costs – that the law considers unreasonable to impose simply to vindicate a copyright claim in an architectural design. This provision is viewed as a restriction on the copyright owner’s rights in the interest of practical reality, even though it clearly limits their legal leverage.

It is worth noting that copyright in a work of architecture under the Act subsists only in the artistic character and design of the work – it does not extend to the processes or methods of construction. So the protection is narrower to begin with, and Section 59 further narrows the remedies available when a building based on an infringing design is already being built.

Why this matters: the significance of deemed ownership 🔗

The fiction of deemed ownership in Section 58 is more than a technical device – it has real strategic and practical importance in copyright litigation.

Without this fiction, a copyright owner’s only recourse would be to sue for damages caused by infringement, or seek an injunction to stop further copying. By deeming the infringing copies to be the owner’s property, the law allows the owner to take direct action to recover the copies themselves – removing them from circulation entirely. This is far more effective than damages alone in cases involving mass piracy, because it strikes at the infringing stock rather than just compensating for past harm.

The conversion remedy also means that every act of dealing with those copies – every sale, every transfer, every commercial use – is a fresh tortious act against the owner’s deemed property. This multiplies the legal exposure for distributors and intermediaries who knowingly deal in pirated materials, even if they were not the original source of the copies.

In practice, this is particularly relevant in cases involving pirated books, counterfeit software, and unauthorized music recordings – areas where large volumes of infringing copies may be in circulation across a distribution chain involving multiple parties.

The interplay with other civil remedies 🔗

Section 58 does not operate in isolation. It fits within the broader civil remedies framework under Chapter XII of the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 55 provides general civil remedies for copyright infringement, including injunctions, damages, accounts of profits, and delivery up of infringing copies. Section 58 supplements these remedies by establishing the deemed ownership principle and the conversion remedy specifically.

There is also an important interaction with criminal enforcement. While Section 58 operates on the civil side, Section 64 empowers a police officer of the rank of sub-inspector or above to seize infringing copies without a warrant when satisfied that a copyright infringement offence has been committed – with those copies then to be produced before a magistrate. The civil and criminal mechanisms thus work in parallel, giving copyright owners and enforcement authorities complementary tools to address infringement.

Plates and tools of infringement 🔗

An often-overlooked aspect of Section 58 is its explicit inclusion of plates – the tools used to produce infringing copies – within the scope of deemed ownership. This means that printing blocks, moulds, digital masters, or any other device intended for use in producing infringing copies also vest legally in the copyright owner. The owner can seek their recovery and can seek a remedy for conversion in relation to them, subject to the same exceptions discussed above. This prevents infringers from destroying or selling the tools of piracy while contesting liability over the copies themselves.

Balancing owner’s rights and practical fairness 🔗

Taken together, Sections 58 and 59 reveal a careful balancing act within Indian copyright law. On one side, the law strongly backs copyright owners – granting them deemed ownership over infringing copies and the tools used to make them, and enabling them to recover possession or sue for conversion. On the other side, the law recognises that rigid enforcement is not always equitable or practical. The innocent infringer exceptions prevent draconian outcomes where a person genuinely had no knowledge of copyright subsistence. The architecture exception prevents courts from ordering the demolition of buildings already under construction simply because their design borrowed from a protected work.

This nuanced approach reflects a broader principle in intellectual property law: rights must be enforced, but enforcement must be proportionate. The Copyright Act, 1957 – shaped by several amendments including the significant Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 – continues to evolve in response to new challenges, but the foundational principles of Section 58 remain central to civil copyright enforcement in India.

What do you think? If an infringer can successfully plead ignorance of copyright subsistence to escape a conversion remedy, does that create a loophole that is too easy to exploit? And given the architecture exception under Section 59, how should courts balance a copyright owner’s design rights against the economic reality of a building already under construction?

References

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/348788/
2. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15356/1/the_copyright_act,_1957.pdf
3. https://cleartax.in/s/copyright-infringement
4. https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1383284/an-overview-of-the-copyright-act-1957
5. https://kanoongpt.in/bare-acts/the-copyright-act-1957/section-59
6. https://www.legitquest.com/act/copyright-act-1957-amended-upto-2023/10ad8
7. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1367?sam_handle=123456789/1362
8. https://onlinelawconnect.com/actsandrules/ipr/copyrightact/overview.php