Copyright Act: Safeguarding Public Interest Through Fair Use and Beyond

Every time a student photocopies a chapter from a textbook, a researcher quotes an academic paper, or a news channel clips a few seconds of footage for a report – copyright law is quietly in the background. The Copyright Act, 1957 is India’s foundational statute for protecting creative works. But what most people don’t realize is that the same law that protects creators also contains a set of built-in safeguards that stop copyright from becoming a barrier to education, research, and cultural participation. These provisions – fair dealing, compulsory licensing, and special disability access rights – are not loopholes. They are deliberate legislative choices designed to serve the public interest.

Copyright is not an absolute right 🔗

The Copyright Act grants creators exclusive rights over their works – the right to reproduce, distribute, perform, and adapt them. But the law is clear that these rights have limits. As one legal overview puts it, just as even the most crucial Fundamental Rights under the Constitution are not absolute, neither is copyright. The object of these exceptions is to maintain a balance between individual interest and the public interest.

This balance is not a new idea. It is embedded in India’s international obligations too – the Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, and the WIPO Treaties all permit member countries to carve out exceptions to copyright in certain circumstances, provided those exceptions do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright holder. India has taken these permissions seriously, and they are most visibly reflected in Section 52 of the Act.

Section 52: The heart of fair dealing in India 🔗

Section 52 is often referred to as the “fair dealing” provision – and it is the primary vehicle through which the Copyright Act balances private rights with public benefit. India follows a “fair dealing” approach, which is narrower than the American concept of “fair use.” While the US standard can be applied flexibly to almost any use, the Indian approach is purpose-specific and enumerated – meaning only the uses explicitly listed in Section 52 are protected.

Those permitted purposes include private or personal use and research, criticism or review of a work, reporting of current events (including public lectures), reproduction for judicial proceedings, and use for educational purposes. For students, researchers, and teachers, this last category is particularly significant.

What fair dealing does not cover 🔗

It is worth being clear about what Section 52 does not permit. Indian fair dealing is confined to enumerated statutory purposes and remains more conservative than open-ended fair-use regimes. Courts look at several factors when assessing a fair dealing claim: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the portion used, and the effect of the use on the potential market for the original work. Wholesale reproduction – copying an entire work – is generally not permitted. And commercial exploitation, even under the guise of an educational purpose, is unlikely to qualify.

Educational and library exceptions: Enabling access to knowledge 🔗

Section 52 contains several provisions that specifically protect the educational ecosystem. Under Section 52(1)(i), reproduction of a copyrighted work by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction does not amount to infringement. This provision, along with Section 52(1)(h), allows for the inclusion of short passages from published literary or dramatic works in collections intended for educational use – subject to certain conditions, including that no more than two passages from works by the same author be included in a five-year period.

Libraries are also specifically recognized. Section 52(1)(o) permits non-profit libraries to make copies for preservation of deteriorating works, for research access, and for inter-library resource sharing. This acknowledges the unique position libraries occupy: they are repositories of knowledge that must both respect creators’ rights and ensure that knowledge remains accessible.

The DU photocopy case: A landmark moment for educational fair dealing 🔗

No discussion of educational exceptions under Indian copyright law is complete without the famous DU photocopy case. In 2012, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Taylor & Francis filed a suit against Rameshwari Photocopy Services – a shop licensed to operate within Delhi University’s campus – alleging that its preparation of “course packs” (compilations of excerpts from their textbooks) violated their copyright.

In a landmark ruling in December 2016, the Delhi High Court held that photocopying portions of books by teachers, students, or educational institutions, and making course packs from such portions, does not amount to copyright infringement under Section 52(1)(i). The court held that copyright is a statutory right – not an absolute natural right – and is subject to limitations in the public interest. The publishers eventually withdrew their suit. The case remains a touchstone for how Indian courts interpret educational exceptions: broadly, with clear sensitivity to the access needs of students in a developing nation.

Compulsory licensing: When the market fails public access 🔗

Fair dealing handles everyday educational use. But what happens when a work is simply unavailable – when a copyright owner refuses to publish, republish, or allow a work to be communicated to the public? This is where compulsory licensing comes in.

Compulsory licenses allow for the use of copyrighted works without the copyright holder’s consent, but always with payment of statutory royalties. They are not free passes to use someone’s work – they are state-authorized licenses that override a copyright owner’s refusal in situations where the public interest demands access.

Section 31: Works withheld from the public 🔗

Under Section 31, if a copyright owner has refused to republish or allow the communication of a work to the public – without reasonable grounds – any person can file a complaint before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). If the Board is satisfied that the refusal is unreasonable and prejudicial to the public, it can direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant a compulsory license, subject to payment of appropriate royalties to the owner. The copyright owner is still compensated; they simply cannot hold a work hostage from the public indefinitely.

Section 31A and 31B: Orphan works and disability access 🔗

Section 31A addresses a practical problem: what if the copyright owner cannot be traced at all? These are called “orphan works” – works whose owners are dead, unknown, or untraceable. In such cases, a person can apply to the IPAB for a license to publish or communicate the work to the public, ensuring it does not remain inaccessible due to purely administrative barriers.

Section 31B, added by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, deals with the needs of persons with disabilities. Any person working for the benefit of disabled persons can apply for a compulsory license to publish any copyrighted work for their benefit, in cases where the fair dealing provisions of Section 52(1)(zb) do not already cover the situation. The IPAB is required to dispose of such applications within two months – a reflection of the urgency the legislature attached to disability access.

Sections 31C and 31D: Statutory licenses for broadcasting 🔗

The 2012 amendment also introduced statutory licenses – a separate category from compulsory licenses. Compulsory licenses require Board approval and specific conditions, while statutory licenses have fixed royalty rates for cover versions or broadcasting. Section 31C allows anyone to make a cover version of a musical work after sound recordings have already been commercially released, subject to prior notice and advance royalty payment. Section 31D allows broadcasting organizations to communicate literary and musical works and sound recordings to the public on payment of royalties at rates fixed by the IPAB. These provisions were specifically designed for the digital and broadcast media era.

Translation licenses: Bridging the language barrier 🔗

India’s linguistic diversity creates a unique copyright challenge. A crucial academic text in English may be inaccessible to millions of students and researchers who work in regional languages. Section 32 of the Act addresses this by providing for translation licenses. After a waiting period – seven years from the date of first publication for fiction, poetry, drama, music, or art; three years for scientific and technical works – any person can apply for a license to translate a work into a language in general use in India, for the purpose of teaching, scholarship, or research. Section 32 promotes educational access precisely by ensuring that language does not become a permanent barrier to knowledge.

Disability access under Section 52(1)(zb) 🔗

The 2012 amendment introduced one of the most significant expansions of the fair dealing framework: Section 52(1)(zb), which permits the adaptation, reproduction, issue of copies, or communication to the public of any work in formats specially designed for persons with disabilities. This covers conversion to Braille, audio formats, large print, and other accessible media. The provision applies on a non-profit basis and is framed as a matter of both public interest and equity – recognizing that access to culture and knowledge is not a privilege but a right that the law must actively protect for every citizen.

India’s approach versus international standards 🔗

It is worth pausing to consider how India’s public interest provisions compare globally. The concept of “fair dealing” in India is similar to “fair use” in the US, but operates differently in practice. The US standard is open-ended – courts assess any use against four factors and can find fair use in almost any context where the balance tips in favor of the public. India’s approach, by contrast, is enumerated and purpose-specific: only the uses explicitly listed in Section 52 are protected. This makes Indian fair dealing more predictable in some ways, but also more restrictive. However, India’s compulsory and statutory licensing framework – particularly for education, translation, and disability access – is in some respects more comprehensive than what many developed nations offer, reflecting India’s specific developmental needs as a country with a vast, multilingual, and diverse educational system.

The limits of the framework: Challenges in the digital age 🔗

Despite the robustness of the 1957 Act and its 2012 amendments, the framework faces real challenges. Online piracy, user-generated content, text and data mining, orphan works, and artificial intelligence all present challenges that the existing framework was not designed to address. The definition of “fair dealing” remains undefined in the statute itself, leaving courts to develop the doctrine case by case – a process that creates uncertainty. Digital content crosses borders instantaneously, making enforcement difficult. And the rise of AI-generated works raises entirely new questions about who holds copyright and what uses of copyrighted training data are permissible.

The Copyright Act, 1957, continues to evolve, and future reforms will need to grapple with these issues head-on – particularly as India’s ambitions in the knowledge economy grow and its digital infrastructure expands.

What do you think? India’s Copyright Act tilts its public interest provisions toward a developing nation’s priorities – broad educational exceptions, translation licenses, and disability access. But does the current framework adequately protect the rights of Indian creators in a digital world where their works can be shared and reproduced at scale with a single click? And given that the term “fair dealing” is still not defined in the statute, should the legislature step in with clearer definitions – or is judicial flexibility the better approach for a country as diverse as India?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15356/1/the_copyright_act,_1957.pdf
2. https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1383284/an-overview-of-the-copyright-act-1957
3. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/15814
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_India
5. https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=15577
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford_v._Rameshwari_Photocopy_Service
7. https://legal-wires.com/case-study/case-study-the-chancellor-masters-scholars-of-the-university-of-oxford-ors-v-rameshwari-photocopy-services-anr/
8. https://thelegalschool.in/blog/compulsory-licensing-under-copyright-law
9. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/CprAct.pdf
10. https://lis.academy/library-information-and-society/copyright-act-1957-legal-rights-authors-creators/
11. https://lawbhoomi.com/copyright-act-1957/