Visual creativity occupies a distinctive place in the copyright landscape. A photograph taken in a fraction of a second, a painting developed over months, a sculpture carved from stone, an architectural elevation drafted with precision each of these represents an act of creative expression that the law recognises and protects, yet each raises questions about authorship, originality and the scope of protection that do not arise in the same form for literary or musical works. The visual arts present copyright law with some of its most challenging problems: when does a photograph of an existing subject attract independent copyright? How much creative contribution is needed to protect a work of applied art? What is the relationship between copyright in a building and the right to photograph it? How are the rights of commissioned portrait photographers managed against the interests of their subjects?
India’s copyright framework for photographs and artistic works is established by the Copyright Act, 1957, which defines “artistic work” broadly to encompass paintings, sculptures, drawings, engravings, photographs, works of architecture and works of artistic craftsmanship. The definition is technology-neutral in conception it covers works produced by any medium, in any style and at any level of aesthetic achievement, subject only to the fundamental requirement of originality. The judicial interpretation of these provisions, shaped by decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India, has produced a body of doctrine that is coherent in principle but still developing in many of its practical applications.
This article offers a comprehensive examination of copyright in photographs and artistic works under Indian law moving through the statutory definitions, the originality requirement as applied to visual works, the specific treatment of photographs, the rules governing ownership in commissioned and employment contexts, the moral rights of visual artists, the public display exception and its limits, the relationship between artistic copyright and industrial design, the treatment of works of architecture and the significant cases that have defined this area of law.
The Statutory Definition of Artistic Work
Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines “artistic work” to mean a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality, a work of architecture and any other work of artistic craftsmanship. Several features of this definition deserve attention.
The phrase “whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality” is a deliberate and important qualification. It establishes that the copyright protection of artistic works does not require any evaluation of aesthetic merit. A photograph taken for purely commercial or documentary purposes a product shot for an e-commerce catalogue, a property photograph for a real estate listing, a passport photograph is an artistic work within the meaning of Section 2(c) regardless of whether any observer would characterise it as artistically significant. The same principle applies to drawings, engravings and other works in the defined categories. The law does not discriminate between fine art and commercial art, between the photograph in a gallery and the photograph in a newspaper advertisement, between the commissioned portrait and the smartphone snapshot.
This quality-neutral approach is consistent with the foundational principle that copyright protects creative effort and expression, not aesthetic achievement. The judgment of what is artistically valuable is left to the market, critics and cultural institutions, not to the copyright system. Copyright’s function is to protect the author’s investment in creative expression and that function operates identically whether the expression is aesthetically elevated or commercially mundane.
The inclusion of “any other work of artistic craftsmanship” at the end of the definition creates an open-ended category that potentially encompasses three-dimensional works not clearly falling within the other listed categories handmade furniture, jewellery design, ceramics, textile art and other craft objects where skill and aesthetic judgment are combined in the creation of a functional or decorative object. The boundary between artistic craftsmanship and industrial design is one of the most contested in copyright law and it is examined in detail below.
The Originality Requirement for Visual Works
The requirement that an artistic work be “original” to attract copyright applies equally to photographs, paintings, sculptures and all other forms of visual art. As with literary works, originality in the copyright sense does not require novelty in the patent law sense it requires only that the work originate from its author and not be copied from another source.
The Supreme Court’s analysis of originality in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008), while arising in the context of literary works, established the applicable standard across all categories of works: not mere labour but a “minimal degree of creativity” some creative choice or judgment exercised by the author in creating the work. Applied to visual works, this standard means that the author must have exercised some degree of creative judgment in the work’s creation in the composition of a photograph, the design of a drawing, the conception and execution of a painting for the resulting work to attract copyright.
For most visual works, the originality requirement is easily satisfied. A painter who creates an original composition on canvas has clearly exercised creative judgment sufficient to attract copyright. A sculptor who conceives and executes an original three-dimensional form has done the same. A graphic designer who creates an original illustration for a commercial client has produced an original artistic work. The difficulty arises at the margins photographs taken in highly constrained circumstances, drawings that closely follow pre-existing plans and craft objects produced to standard patterns all raise genuine questions about whether the minimal creativity threshold is met.
Copyright in Photographs The Specific Challenge
Photographs present copyright law with a distinctive challenge. Unlike a painting, which is entirely the product of the artist’s creative choices, a photograph is a mechanical reproduction of a pre-existing subject. The camera records what is in front of it the scene, the light, the subject in a manner that is partly determined by the photographer’s choices and partly determined by objective reality. The question of when a photograph crosses the threshold from a mechanical record into an original creative expression has been debated in courts around the world.
Indian courts, drawing on the analysis of English and Commonwealth authorities, have generally held that a photograph attracts copyright where the photographer has exercised creative judgment in its creation in the choice of subject, the selection of viewpoint, the framing and composition, the timing of the exposure, the management of lighting and focus and the decisions made in post-processing. Each of these decisions is a form of creative expression that, in combination, constitutes the photograph as an original artistic work.
The Delhi High Court addressed the originality of photographs directly in Akhil Gupta & Ors. v. Jaydev Kalra (2018), holding that professional photographs taken with creative skill and judgment in framing, lighting and composition attracted copyright as original artistic works. The Court’s analysis affirmed that the photographer’s creative choices, however brief the moment of capture, are sufficient to satisfy the originality requirement.
The question of copyright in photographs taken without any particular creative intent automatic or surveillance camera images, screenshots, computer-generated images, machine-produced images is more difficult. Where the “photographer” makes no creative choices at all where the image is produced entirely by automated processes without human creative direction the argument for originality is weak. The analysis mirrors that applicable to AI-generated works discussed in the dedicated article on that topic.
The Photograph of a Copyrighted Work
A particular complexity arises when a photograph is taken of a pre-existing copyrighted work a photograph of a painting, a sculpture or an artistic installation. The photographer’s creative choices in composing the photograph may satisfy the originality requirement for copyright in the photograph itself. However, the reproduction right in the underlying work is engaged by the act of photography taking a photograph of a copyrighted painting is a reproduction of that painting within the meaning of Section 14(c)(i).
This means that a photographer who takes a photograph of a painting without the copyright owner’s authorisation infringes the copyright in the painting, even if the photograph itself attracts independent copyright as an original artistic work. The photographer owns the copyright in their photograph but holds it subject to the infringement of the painting copyright a position of legal vulnerability that prevents the photographer from commercially exploiting their photograph without resolving the underlying infringement.
The public display exception under Section 52(1)(t) and (u), discussed below, addresses this problem for works on permanent public display sculptures in public parks, works of architecture and artistic works permanently situated in public places. For works in museums, galleries or private collections, no equivalent exception applies and photography of such works without the rights holder’s permission remains an infringement of the reproduction right in the underlying work.
Ownership of Copyright in Photographs Commissioned and Employment Contexts
The rules governing first ownership of copyright in photographs are among the most practically important in artistic copyright law and they have generated significant disputes in the Indian context.
The general rule under Section 17 is that the author of an artistic work the person who creates it is the first owner of the copyright. For photographs, the author is the photographer the person who takes the photograph. This rule applies subject to the provisos to Section 17 that alter ownership in employment and commissioning contexts.
Proviso (b) to Section 17 vests copyright in the employer where a work is made by the author in the course of their employment under a contract of service. A staff photographer employed by a newspaper, a photographer engaged as an employee by a commercial photography studio or an in-house photographer employed by a corporation to document its activities all create photographs in the course of employment and the copyright in those photographs vests in the employing organisation rather than in the individual photographer.
Proviso (c) to Section 17 provides that where a work is made by the author in pursuance of a commission by another party, the party commissioning the work is the first owner of the copyright in the absence of any contrary agreement. For photographers, this proviso is of enormous practical significance. A wedding photographer commissioned by a couple, a portrait photographer commissioned by an individual, a commercial photographer commissioned by a business to create product imagery all create photographs pursuant to a commission and under proviso (c), the commissioning party is the first copyright owner absent any agreement to the contrary.
This default commissioning rule means that clients who commission photographs own the copyright in the resulting images without any further agreement being needed, while the photographer retains no copyright in images they have been paid to create. Many photographers are unaware of this rule and assume that because they created the image, they own the copyright. This assumption is legally incorrect under Indian copyright law in the commissioned context.
The practical consequence is significant. A photographer who wishes to retain copyright in commissioned work to use the images in their portfolio, to license them to third parties or to prevent the client from sublicensing them to others must ensure that the commissioning agreement expressly provides for copyright to vest in or revert to the photographer. Without such express provision, the copyright vests in the client by operation of law.
For photographers operating in the commercial market, the standard industry practice in many jurisdictions is to retain copyright by default and grant only specified licences to clients. This is achievable under Indian law by including an express provision in the commissioning agreement that overrides the Section 17(c) default specifying that copyright in the photographs vests in the photographer and that the client receives only a defined licence for specified purposes. This approach requires clear contractual provision negotiated before the commission is accepted and reflects the significant difference between what photographers often assume and what the law actually provides.
Moral Rights of Visual Artists
The moral rights of visual artists under Section 57 of the Copyright Act have particular practical significance in the artistic context, where the relationship between the physical work and its creator’s reputation and identity is especially close. The right of paternity the right to be identified as the author and the right of integrity the right to object to modifications prejudicial to the author’s honour apply to all artistic works including photographs, paintings, sculptures, drawings and works of architecture.
The Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005) decision, discussed in the dedicated article on moral rights, established the foundational principles of the integrity right in the context of a commissioned sculptural work. The Delhi High Court’s holding that the physical removal and warehousing of the artist’s mural at Vigyan Bhavan violated Section 57 regardless of the Government’s ownership of both the physical work and the copyright has direct application to all artistic works commissioned for public or institutional display.
For photographers, the moral rights provisions are relevant in the context of digital manipulation. A photograph that is digitally altered retouched in ways that change the subject or the composition, colour-corrected in ways that distort the photographer’s creative choices or cropped in ways that alter its meaning may engage the integrity right if the alteration would be prejudicial to the photographer’s honour or reputation. Commercial use of a photographer’s images in contexts that the photographer finds objectionable the use of a documentary photographer’s images in advertising for products they oppose, the use of a portrait photographer’s work in association with causes they reject may similarly engage the moral rights framework.
The interaction between the commissioned work ownership rules and the moral rights framework creates an important tension. The client who commissions a photograph and becomes the copyright owner under Section 17(c) may modify, crop or use the photograph in ways that the photographer considers prejudicial to their professional reputation. The photographer retains the moral rights under Section 57 independently of the copyright transfer but the exercise of those rights against a client who has legitimately acquired the copyright may be commercially and practically difficult. The resolution of this tension requires careful contractual provision in the commissioning agreement, specifying the uses for which the client may modify the photographs and the attribution requirements that must be observed.
The Public Display Exception Section 52(1)(t) and (u)
Section 52(1)(t) and (u) of the Copyright Act provide important exceptions to the reproduction right for artistic works that are on permanent public display. These provisions allow the public to photograph, film and share images of certain categories of artistic works without the copyright owner’s authorisation.
Section 52(1)(t) provides that the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a work of architecture or the display of a work of architecture is not an infringement of the copyright in that work. This provision allows any person to photograph a building even a recently constructed building whose copyright may still be subsisting for any purpose including commercial publication, without seeking the copyright owner’s permission.
Section 52(1)(u) provides that the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture or other work of artistic craftsmanship, if such work is permanently situated in a public place or any premises open to the public, is not an infringement of copyright in the work. This provision allows the photography of sculptures, public art installations and other three-dimensional works of artistic craftsmanship that are on permanent public display, without the artist’s authorisation.
The key conditions of Section 52(1)(u) are that the work must be permanently situated a temporary installation does not benefit from the exception and that it must be in a public place or premises open to the public. A sculpture in a public park, a mural on the wall of a government building, a bronze figure in a public square all fall within the exception. A work in a private collection, a commissioned sculpture in a private building not open to the public or a temporary art installation in a gallery does not.
The exception does not extend to two-dimensional works paintings, drawings, prints that happen to be displayed in public places. A mural on a public building is protected by Section 52(1)(u) if it qualifies as a work of artistic craftsmanship, but a painting hung in a public library or museum is not within the exception. The distinction reflects a judgment that the permanent integration of a three-dimensional work into public space creates an implied licence for public engagement with it including photography that does not apply to two-dimensional works that retain a clearer separation from their public display context.
Copyright in Works of Architecture
Works of architecture present copyright questions that arise in no other category of artistic work. An architectural work exists simultaneously as an artistic work the creative expression of the architect’s design and as a functional structure that serves practical purposes, is occupied by people, must comply with planning and building regulations and is inevitably modified by its owners over time. The interaction between copyright in the architectural work and the property rights of the building’s owner creates tensions that the Copyright Act addresses only partially.
Section 2(c) includes “a work of architecture” within the definition of artistic work, but Section 2(b) provides a separate definition of “architectural work” that distinguishes it from other artistic works: “artistic work” includes architectural work, meaning “any building or structure having an artistic character or design or any model for such building or structure.” Section 13(5) provides that in the case of a work of architecture, copyright shall subsist only in the artistic character and design and shall not extend to processes or methods of construction.
The architect who designs a building is the author of the architectural work and the first owner of the copyright, subject to the usual provisos for employment and commissioning. An architect employed by a firm who designs buildings as part of their employment creates works whose copyright vests in the employing firm. An architect commissioned to design a specific building creates a work whose copyright, under Section 17(c), vests in the commissioning client in the absence of a contrary agreement a rule that surprises many architects who assume that their designs remain their property after delivery to the client.
The practical consequence of the commissioning default for architects is the same as for photographers: an architect who wishes to retain copyright in their designs to include them in their portfolio, to prevent the client from adapting them without authorisation or to licence them to other parties must include express copyright retention provisions in the commissioning agreement. Without such provision, the copyright passes to the client upon commission and the architect has no proprietary right to prevent the client from adapting or replicating the design.
Section 52(1)(t) provides that the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a work of architecture is not an infringement. This exception applies regardless of whether the building is in a public place it applies to any work of architecture, whether publicly or privately situated. The exception allows architectural photography, the publication of architectural images in books and journals and the depiction of buildings in films and broadcasts without requiring the architect’s or building owner’s copyright authorisation.
The modification of a building by its owner raises difficult questions about the architect’s moral rights. An architect whose building is substantially altered its facade changed, its interior reconfigured, its distinctive design elements removed may have a claim under Section 57 if the alterations are prejudicial to their professional honour or reputation. The Delhi High Court has not directly addressed a case involving architectural moral rights, but the principles established in the Amarnath Sehgal case in relation to sculpture are applicable in principle to architectural modifications.
Artistic Copyright and Industrial Design The Critical Boundary
One of the most commercially important and most frequently litigated questions in artistic copyright law is the boundary between copyright in an artistic work and the protection available under the Designs Act, 2000 for registered industrial designs. This boundary determines whether the creative work that goes into the design of commercial products packaging, furniture, textiles, consumer goods, electronic products is protected as copyright or as registered design and the two forms of protection have very different characteristics, term lengths and enforcement mechanisms.
Section 15 of the Copyright Act addresses this boundary directly. Section 15(1) provides that copyright shall not subsist under the Copyright Act in any design which is registered under the Designs Act, 2000. Section 15(2) provides that copyright in any design capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000 but which has not been so registered shall cease as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright or, with the licence of the owner, by any other person.
The effect of Section 15 is to create a channelling mechanism: designs that are applied industrially used to manufacture articles in commercial quantities are channelled out of copyright protection and into the design registration system. A design that has been applied to more than fifty manufactured articles loses its copyright protection, whether or not it has been registered as a design. Only design registration under the Designs Act provides protection for such commercially exploited designs.
The boundary between artistic work and registrable design has been extensively litigated in India. The courts have generally focused on the concept of “article” within the Designs Act a design is registrable if it is applied to an article, meaning a finished article produced by an industrial process. A pattern applied to a fabric, a shape applied to a piece of furniture, a surface ornamentation applied to a consumer electronic product all are potentially registrable as designs and subject to the Section 15(2) rule.
The Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. (2009) decision of the Delhi High Court is among the most important Indian decisions on the artistic copyright-industrial design boundary. The Court held that fabric designs that had been industrially applied to furnishing textiles were subject to the fifty-article rule under Section 15(2), losing copyright protection once applied to more than fifty articles. The decision affirmed the channelling principle of Section 15 and the importance of design registration for commercially applied designs.
Ritika Private Limited v. Biba Apparels Private Limited (2016) involved copyright claims in garment designs and raised the question of whether specific artistic elements of garment designs retained copyright independently of the overall design’s registrability. The Delhi High Court’s analysis of which elements of a garment design are protectable as artistic works and which are registrable designs subject to the fifty-article rule, provides important guidance for the fashion and apparel industry.
Photographs in the Digital Economy Specific Issues
The digital distribution of photographs has created a set of specific copyright issues that are increasingly important for professional photographers, image libraries and commercial users of photographic content.
Stock photography platforms Getty Images, Shutterstock, Adobe Stock and their Indian equivalents operate as collective licensing systems for photographic content, allowing commercial users to licence photographs through a single platform that administers rights on behalf of contributing photographers. The licensing terms offered by these platforms typically a non-exclusive licence for specified commercial uses, at a royalty split between the platform and the contributing photographer create a commercialised framework for photographic rights that supplements the individual licensing model of professional photography.
Reverse image search technology available through Google Images, TinEye and similar services has provided photographers with a practical tool for identifying unauthorised uses of their images online. Professional photographers and image libraries routinely use these tools to detect commercial use of their images without licence and the resulting detection has generated a significant volume of enforcement activity both through direct negotiation and through litigation.
The practice of “screen-grabbing” capturing screenshots of photographs from websites, social media platforms or streaming services is a form of reproduction that engages the copyright owner’s rights without authorisation. The screenshot is a copy of the original image and its creation and sharing without permission is infringement regardless of the ease with which it can be accomplished. The practical difficulty of enforcing copyright against individual screen-grabbers does not affect the legal analysis of their activity.
Metadata stripping the removal of the identifying information embedded in a digital photograph, including the photographer’s name, copyright notice and licensing terms is separately prohibited under Section 65B of the Copyright Act, which makes the removal or alteration of rights management information a specific offence independent of any infringement claim. The combination of copyright infringement through unauthorised reproduction and Section 65B liability for metadata removal provides photographers with dual enforcement avenues against platforms and users that strip and redistribute their images without attribution.
Artistic Works and the Law of Passing Off
Artistic works particularly distinctive logos, characters and visual designs may attract protection under the law of passing off in addition to copyright, where their reputation in the market is such that their unauthorised use by a third party would constitute a misrepresentation that the third party’s goods or services are associated with or endorsed by the original rights holder.
The law of passing off, developed through common law principles and extended by Indian courts, protects the goodwill associated with a distinctive visual presentation from misappropriation by competitors seeking to benefit from that goodwill. A distinctive artistic logo, a well-known visual character, a recognisable brand identity created through artistic design all may be protected against passing off where the necessary elements of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage can be established.
The interaction between copyright and passing off provides rights holders with complementary legal tools. Copyright protects the specific artistic expression against copying; passing off protects the commercial reputation associated with that expression against misappropriation even where the copying is not precise enough to constitute infringement. The combination of both claims is common in commercial disputes involving artistic works used in branding and product design.
Key Cases in Artistic Copyright
Akhil Gupta & Ors. v. Jaydev Kalra (2018) The Delhi High Court affirmed copyright in professional photographs taken with creative skill and judgment, holding that the photographer’s choices in framing, lighting and composition satisfied the originality requirement. The decision is the primary Indian authority on photographic copyright and its application in commercial contexts.
Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005) The foundational Indian decision on moral rights in artistic works, establishing that the artist’s integrity right under Section 57 persists after transfer of ownership of both the physical work and the copyright and that the physical destruction or mutilation of a unique artistic work constitutes a violation of that right.
Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. (2009) The Delhi High Court’s leading decision on the artistic copyright-industrial design boundary, affirming the fifty-article rule under Section 15(2) and the channelling of industrially applied designs into the Designs Act framework.
Ritika Private Limited v. Biba Apparels Private Limited (2016) The Delhi High Court’s analysis of copyright in garment designs and the distinction between protectable artistic elements and registrable industrial designs in the fashion context.
Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag Sanghavi (2015) The Delhi High Court’s recognition of copyright in the visual characters and artistic elements of a cinematograph film, establishing that distinctive character designs attract artistic copyright protection against unauthorised commercial reproduction.
Raj Rewal v. Union of India (2019) The Delhi High Court addressed the architect’s moral right in the context of the proposed demolition of the Hall of Nations and Nehru Pavilion in New Delhi, designed by renowned architect Raj Rewal. The Court examined whether an architect retains rights under Section 57 that can be exercised against the building owner’s decision to demolish the structure, recognising the existence of the moral right but grappling with its limits against the owner’s property rights.
Pepsi Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. (2003) While primarily an advertising dispute, the Delhi High Court’s analysis of the artistic copyright in advertisement films, storyboards and visual presentations has been widely cited in the context of commercial artistic works and the protection of advertising creative content.
Chhaparbands and Ors. v. M/s. Shyam Chand (2019) The Delhi High Court addressed copyright in artistic works used in textile designs, affirming the principle that original artistic designs in fabrics attract copyright protection independent of their industrial application, subject to the fifty-article limitation under Section 15(2).
NFTs and Digital Art Emerging Considerations
Non-fungible tokens unique digital certificates of ownership recorded on a blockchain have created a new commercial context for artistic copyright that raises questions the Copyright Act was not designed to address. An artist who “mints” a digital artwork as an NFT creates a unique digital token associated with the work, which is then sold to a buyer who acquires ownership of the token. The copyright in the underlying artwork, however, does not automatically transfer with the NFT unless the token’s terms of sale expressly provide for a copyright transfer.
The relationship between NFT ownership and copyright ownership in the associated artwork is therefore entirely a matter of the terms on which the NFT is created and sold. An NFT buyer who assumes that purchasing the token conveys the copyright including the right to reproduce, sell prints or license the work commercially is mistaken unless the NFT’s terms of sale expressly grant those rights. In the absence of express copyright provisions in the NFT transaction, the buyer owns the token and the artist retains the copyright.
For Indian artists selling NFTs, the copyright analysis must comply with the formal requirements of Section 19 for a valid assignment a written assignment signed by the assignor specifying the rights transferred, the duration and the territorial extent. A blockchain transaction that records the sale of an NFT does not, without more, constitute a valid written assignment of copyright under Indian law. Artists and buyers transacting in NFTs should ensure that any intended copyright transfer is documented in a separate written agreement that complies with Section 19’s requirements.
The Indian Copyright Act’s provisions on moral rights are particularly relevant to NFT art. The right of paternity the right to be identified as the author and the right of integrity the right to object to distorting modifications persist after any transfer of the NFT and after any transfer of the copyright in the associated work. An NFT platform or buyer who alters, distorts or modifies a digital artwork purchased as an NFT without the artist’s consent may engage the integrity right under Section 57, regardless of the terms of the NFT sale.
Conclusion
Copyright in photographs and artistic works under Indian law is a field of practical importance and doctrinal richness that engages the full complexity of the Copyright Act’s framework. The broad definition of artistic work in Section 2(c), the quality-neutral originality standard, the specific rules for ownership in commissioned and employment contexts, the moral rights provisions of Section 57, the public display exceptions, the architectural copyright regime and the critical boundary between artistic copyright and industrial design registration all of these combine to create a framework that is comprehensive in principle but requires careful navigation in practice.
For photographers, the most important practical messages are to understand that commissioned work vests copyright in the client by default and to use contractual provisions to preserve their rights where they wish to do so. For visual artists, the critical importance of Section 57’s moral rights which persist after copyright transfer and protect the integrity of the work against damaging modifications deserves more attention than it typically receives in commercial negotiations. For architects, the commissioning default and the moral rights implications of building modification create legal issues that standard architectural engagement letters frequently fail to address.
For commercial enterprises that use artistic works in branding, product design, advertising, digital distribution and social media the copyright and design registration framework creates obligations that are frequently underestimated. The fifty-article rule of Section 15(2) can strip copyright from commercially applied designs without any action by the rights holder and the absence of design registration leaves those designs without legal protection precisely when they are most commercially valuable.
The emerging issues NFT art, AI-generated imagery, social media photography, deepfakes of visual works and the intersection of artistic copyright with data protection will require the development of Indian copyright doctrine in directions that the existing statute does not clearly anticipate. The foundation for that development is the statutory framework and judicial jurisprudence examined in this article, applied with the creativity and contextual sensitivity that the visual arts both exemplify and deserve.
References
- The Copyright Act, 1957, Sections 2(b), 2(c), 13, 14(c), 15, 17, 52(1)(t), 52(1)(u), 57, 65B https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1958.pdf
- The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/Amendment_Act2012.pdf
- The Designs Act, 2000 https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOAct/1_31_1_design-act-2000.pdf
- Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India, 117 (2005) DLT 717 (Delhi High Court) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1402532/
- Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co., (2009) 40 PTC 519 (Delhi High Court) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1760924/
- Ritika Private Limited v. Biba Apparels Private Limited, (2016) Delhi High Court https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88012824/
- Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag Sanghavi, CS(OS) 1892/2015 (Delhi High Court) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50984038/
- Raj Rewal v. Union of India, (2019) Delhi High Court https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126082044/
- Pepsi Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd., (2003) 27 PTC 305 (Delhi High Court) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218916/
- Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1023365/
- R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1613 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/595730/
- Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Articles 2, 6bis https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/
- TRIPS Agreement https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf
- Copyright Office of India https://copyright.gov.in
Compulsory Licensing Copyright Act Copyright Act 1957 Copyright Enforcement Copyright Infringement Copyright Law Copyright Rules Deceptive Similarity Descriptive Marks India Indian IP Framework Indian Patent Law Indian Trademark Law Intellectual Property Law IP Law India Patent Claims Patent Enforcement Patent Infringement Patent law Patent Revocation Patent Rule Patents Act 1970 Pharmaceutical Patents Section 3 Section 29 The Patent Act 1970 Trademark Infringement Trademark Registration Trade Marks Act 1999 Trade Marks Rules 2017 TRIPS Compliance