Authorship & Ownership of Copyright in India

Authorship and ownership of copyright - Intellect Vidhya Solutions

The authorship and ownership of copyright in India is distinct. The concept of ‘ownership’ and ‘authorship’ in India becomes vital when the question of propriety over the copyright arises. This article aims to provide a thorough explanation of both concepts.

Who is the Author under Indian Copyright Law?

The Indian copyright law distinguishes between authorship and ownership of copyright in India. An author is someone who actually writes, composes or creates the work utilizing his or her creativity, imagination and intellectual abilities. The author of a particular copyrighted work can also be owner of the work if such work is not created under the employment or direction from some other person.

The ownership of a copyrighted work can vary depending on the conditions surrounding its creation but an author will always remain the creator of the work because the authorship has been rewarded in order to appreciate the efforts that an author put into the creation of the work. The copyright Act, 1957 establishes a general rule that the author is the first owner of a copyright and the exceptions to this rule has been laid down under section 17 of the act, which also explains the difference between the authorship and the ownership of a copyright.

The rights of a copyright owner in India are wide, including the right to reproduce the work, the right to convey the work to the public, the right to adapt, translate, and many more. Whereas the author of the work does not have such a broad range of rights, the author’s rights are limited to the right of receiving remuneration for the work created and the moral rights of being known as the creator of the work (right to paternity) and protecting the work from exploitation (right to integrity).

The creator of a literary or dramatic work is referred to as the author in general, but under the copyright act, any individual who causes a work to be done is the author of that particular work. Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act of 1957 establishes a list of authors for various types of work protected by copyright. The section reads as follows:

  • The author of a literary or dramatic work shall be the author.
  • In musical works, the composer is the author.
  • In artistic works, the artist is the author.
  • The author of a photograph is the person who takes the photograph.
  • The producer of a cinematographic film is the author.
  • The author of a sound recording shall be the producer of such sound recording.

Who is the Owner under Indian Copyright Law?

As previously stated, the author of the work may also be the owner of the work; but, if the work is created in exchange for any consideration or in the course of employment, the person under whose direction the work is created becomes the owner of the work.

For instance, if a person X hires another person Y, who is an application developer, to develop an application for his business under a service agreement, then X will be the owner of such an application and Y, who developed the application under X’s employment in exchange for monetary compensation, will have authorship of the application. On the contrary, if Y had created the application for himself or his business, he would have been both the author and the owner of the application.

Exceptions to the General Rule – ‘Author is the first Owner’

The exceptions to the general rule that the author is the first owner of copyright is laid forth in Section 17 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, which states that a person who pays or provides resources for a work to be created is the first owner of such work. Let us take a closer look at these exceptions.

Section 17Subject matter
Clause (a)Literary, dramatic & artistic work
Clause (b)Photograph, painting, engraving, cinematographic film
Clause (c)Work made under course of employment
Clause (cc)Lectures delivered in public in behalf of another
Clause (d)Work assigned by government
Clause (dd)Work made on behalf of a public undertaking
Clause (dd)Work of certain international organization

• Section 17(a) – Literary, Dramatic & Artistic Work

This clause states that if an author creates a literary, dramatic, or artistic work while working for the owner of a newspaper, magazine, book, or other publication under a contract for publishing such work, the owner of such newspaper or magazine becomes the first owner of the copyrighted work, unless an agreement to the contrary is in place.

Illustration – A journalist or writer working in a newspaper house is never the owner of the work he produces; only authorship is his.

• Section 17(b) – Photograph, painting, engraving, cinematographic film

This paragraph states that anytime a photographer is paid to take photographs, a painter is hired to paint, and a cinematographer is hired to shoot a film, the person who hired or caused such work to be done becomes the first owner of the copyright.

Illustration – A painter hired by a school to paint the school’s boundary walls with storytelling paintings presenting social and moral values will not be the first owner of the paintings he made, but the school that hired the painter will be.

• Section 17(c) – Work made under course of employment

This section states that if a work is made during the course of employment or a service contract, the employer becomes the first owner of such copyrighted work.

In the well-known case of V.T. Thomas and Others vs Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd, the employee, an artist, created a cartoon character prior to his employment with the publishing house Manorama and continued to use it after his job terminated. The publishing house claimed that they were the first owners of the copyright because the cartoon was utilized while the artist was working for them. Although the cartoon was utilized by Manorama, it was not created by the artist during his employment with them; hence he was the sole owner of the artwork.

In another case of Neetu Singh vs Rajiv Saumitra, the court agreed that the defendant had served as a director of a company for two years, but the plaintiffs were unable to prove that the literary work authored by the defendant was part of his employment obligations.

• Section 17(cc) – Lectures delivered in public in behalf of another

This clause states that if a person provides a speech in public on behalf of another person, the person on whose behalf the speech was delivered is the original copyright owner, not the person giving the speech.

• Section 17(d) – Work assigned by government

If a copyrightable work is created as a result of a government tender, the government will be the first owner of the copyright deriving from and accruing to such works.

For example, the Indian government owns the copyright on the “statue of unity,” not the engineers or architects who designed or built it.

• Section 17 (dd) – Work made on behalf of a public undertaking

In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, if a work is created or first published by or under the control or direction of a public undertaking, that public undertaking will be the original owner of Copyright.

• Section 17(dd) – Work of certain international organization

If an international organization commissions someone to create a copyrightable work on its behalf, that organization will be the original owner of the work.


As mentioned, it is understood that the copyright law draws a line of distinction between ownership and authorship in India. Although the author will always be credited as the creator of the work that he or she has produced in the past, ownership of the work may not necessarily remain with the original creator. The general rule that the author is the first owner has exceptions outlined in section 17, but if there is a contrasting agreement between the parties in the course of employment, then the ownership can be altered based on this understanding.


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp

Related Posts

Micro Copyright in India: Protecting Small-Scale Creative Works

In the digital age, the creation and sharing of content have reached unprecedented heights. With the proliferation of user-generated content, short-form media, and the increasing significance of individual contributions to larger works, the concept of “micro copyright” has emerged. Micro copyright refers to the protection of smaller, often more granular, creative expressions. In the context of Indian copyright law, this concept presents unique challenges and opportunities. This article explores the intricacies of micro copyright and the conundrums surrounding its protection in India. Understanding Micro Copyright Micro copyright encompasses the rights associated with smaller creative works such as social media posts, memes, short videos, gifs, and even individual elements within larger works, like specific phrases or designs. These forms of content, while often brief and seemingly inconsequential, can hold significant value and can be the subject of copyright protection. The Legal Framework of Copyright in India The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, primarily governs copyright protection in India. The Act provides protection to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings. For a work to be protected, it must be original and expressed in a tangible form. Challenges in Protecting Micro Copyright 1. Originality and Fixation One of the fundamental requirements for copyright protection is that the work must be original and fixed in a tangible medium. This can be challenging for micro content, where the line between original creation and common expression is often blurred. Determining the originality of a tweet, meme, or short video clip can be subjective and contentious. 2. De Minimis Doctrine The de minimis doctrine, which means “about minimal things,” can pose a significant challenge for micro copyright. This doctrine suggests that the law does not concern itself with trivial matters. Small snippets of content might be considered too insignificant to warrant protection, leaving creators without legal recourse for unauthorized use. 3. Fair Use The concept of fair use allows for limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders. In the context of micro copyright, determining what constitutes fair use can be particularly tricky. For instance, sharing a meme or a short clip might be considered fair use, but if it goes viral and gains commercial value, the original creator might seek protection and compensation. 4. Enforcement and Attribution Even if micro content is eligible for copyright protection, enforcing these rights can be challenging. Monitoring the vast expanse of the internet for unauthorized use of small-scale content is a daunting task. Additionally, the ease with which digital content can be shared and altered complicates the process of ensuring proper attribution and compensation. The Way Forward 1. Clearer Guidelines and Definitions To address the challenges of micro copyright, clearer guidelines and definitions are needed within the Indian Copyright Act. Defining what constitutes a protectable micro work and setting standards for originality can provide better clarity for creators and users alike. 2. Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Technology Leveraging technology, such as digital rights management (DRM) systems and content recognition algorithms, can help creators monitor and enforce their copyright more effectively. These technologies can automate the process of identifying unauthorized uses and facilitate easier enforcement. 3. Education and Awareness Increasing awareness among creators about their rights and the mechanisms available for protecting their content is crucial. Educational campaigns and resources can empower creators to navigate the complexities of copyright law and safeguard their micro creations. 4. Legal Reform and International Cooperation Given the global nature of digital content, international cooperation and harmonization of copyright laws can play a significant role in addressing the challenges of micro copyright. Legal reforms that consider the unique nature of digital content and micro works can provide a more robust framework for protection. Conclusion The rise of micro copyright in the digital era presents a unique conundrum under Indian copyright law. While the current legal framework provides a foundation for protecting creative works, the nuances of micro content require more specific attention and adaptation. By addressing the challenges of originality, fair use, enforcement, and attribution, and by leveraging technology and education, India can better protect the rights of creators in the evolving landscape of digital content.

Read More »
Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name - Intellect Vidhya

Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name

Have you ever walked into a restaurant, drawn by its catchy name or eye-catching logo, only to discover that it’s not the establishment you thought it was? In the bustling food and hospitality industry of India, this scenario is becoming increasingly common. As more and more eateries pop up, it’s crucial for restaurant owners to protect their brand’s identity through trademark registration. A trademark is like a unique fingerprint that sets your goods or services apart from the competition. It’s a legal stamp that says, “This is ours, and no one else can use it.” And in the world of restaurants, where first impressions can make or break your business, a strong trademark can be a game-changer. Why Trademarks Matter for Restaurateurs? Success Stories of Trademarked Restaurant Brands The Consequences of Neglecting Trademark Protection In the vibrant culinary landscape of India, trademarking your restaurant brand is more than just a formality – it’s a strategic move that can safeguard your business identity, maintain brand recognition, and provide legal recourse against infringement. By understanding the importance of trademarks and understanding the appropriate registration process under Indian trademark law, you can protect your valuable intellectual property and pave the way for a future as bright as a perfectly cooked dish, fresh out of the kitchen.

Read More »
The Significance Of Prior Use In The Trademark Law Vans V Ivans - Intellect Vidhya

The Significance of Prior Use in the Trademark Law: Vans v. Ivans

In the complex realm of intellectual property rights, few principles hold as much significance as the concept of “prior use” in Indian trademark law. The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case has brought attention to the fundamental concept of giving precedence to the first user of a trademark in the market. The Vans v. Ivans Case: The case centred on a disagreement between Vans Inc., a well-known American footwear and apparel company, and FCB Garment Tex, an Indian company that used the “IVANS” trademark. Vans Inc. filed a request to invalidate FCB Garment Tex’s trademark registration in India, claiming that their “VANS” mark had recently gained recognition as a well-known trademark in the country. Nevertheless, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of FCB Garment Tex, citing the prior use principle. Important Factors in the Court’s Decision The court’s ruling was influenced by several crucial elements. Firstly, it emphasised that FCB Garment Tex had been using the “IVANS” mark in India for years before Vans Inc. entered the market, applying the “first in the market” principle. Furthermore, the court made it clear that simply declaring a trademark as well-known does not automatically give the owner the authority to cancel other marks that were used earlier in India. Finally, the court determined that FCB Garment’s utilisation of the marks was both sincere and simultaneous, granting them protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Supporting the Principle of Prior Use This landmark ruling is a strong affirmation of the prior use principle in Indian trademark law. This principle emphasises that the initial user of a trademark in the market holds greater rights compared to later users, regardless of their registration status. This concept is deeply embedded in the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, and aims to safeguard businesses that have dedicated significant time and resources to establish their brand identity in the market. The Reasoning Behind Prior Use There are several reasons behind the prior use principle. It strives to recognise and safeguard businesses that have proactively built their brands in the marketplace. By prioritising the initial user, the law recognises the dedication and resources required to establish a strong brand presence and cultivate customer loyalty. This principle also helps to prevent unfair competition by ensuring that well-known brands are not replaced by new ones with similar marks, thus maintaining consumer trust and market stability. Territorial Nature of Trademark Rights In addition, the principle of prior use acknowledges the territorial nature of trademark rights. The Vans v. Ivans case clearly illustrates that having a worldwide reputation is not enough to establish legal rights in a particular jurisdiction. The principle highlights the significance of establishing a tangible market presence and utilising a trademark within India, rather than solely relying on international recognition or registration in other nations. Engaging with well-known Trademarks The prior use principle also has implications for other aspects of trademark law, including the recognition of well-known trademarks. The ruling by the Delhi High Court provides clarity on the advantages of having a well-known trademark status, while also acknowledging the rights of prior users in the market. This delicate equilibrium ensures the safeguarding of well-known local brands while acknowledging the prestige and recognition of globally renowned trademarks. Practical Considerations for Trademark Owners In practice, trademark owners are faced with a significant burden of maintaining proper documentation of their trademark use due to the prior use principle. This encompasses sales records, advertisements, and proof of customer recognition. Consistent and authentic use of the mark is essential, as any substantial gaps in usage can undermine a prior use claim. Conclusion Ultimately, the verdict of the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case serves as a strong affirmation of the prior use principle within Indian trademark law. It emphasises the significance of having a strong market presence and building a reputable brand in order to establish and safeguard trademark rights in India. As the country continues to attract global brands while nurturing its own business ecosystem, this principle will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the development of trademark strategies and dispute resolutions.

Read More »
The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry - Intellect Vidhya

The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has made remarkable progress in various fields, including music production. Voice cloning in music has been a subject of intense debate, raising questions about copyright infringement, moral rights, and the preservation of artistic integrity. The recent criticism voiced by legendary Indian playback singer Kumar Sanu against AI voice duplication brings attention to the mounting concerns within the music industry. Power and Potential of AI Voice Cloning AI voice cloning technology has made significant progress in recreating the voices of singers with outstanding precision. This ability has resulted in the development of new songs that utilise the voices of artists who have passed away, as demonstrated in the recent example of “Pehle Hi Main.” This song was created using an AI-generated voice that mimics the late Mohammed Rafi, who sadly passed away in 1980. Although this technology presents fascinating opportunities for music production and preservation, it also brings up important ethical and legal concerns. Dealing with Copyright Infringement Copyright infringement is a significant legal concern when it comes to AI voice cloning. A singer’s voice is regarded as their valuable asset, safeguarded by copyright laws in numerous jurisdictions. When AI is employed to imitate a singer’s voice without authorization, it may potentially infringe upon copyright protections. This encompasses violations of reproduction rights, distribution rights, and the unauthorised creation of derivative works. Moral Rights and Personality Rights In addition to copyright concerns, AI voice cloning also brings up ethical and legal questions surrounding moral rights and personality rights. It is important for singers to safeguard their work from any alterations or manipulations that may negatively impact their reputation. Additionally, there is a potential for confusion and misrepresentation when AI-generated voices are not explicitly identified. Furthermore, in numerous legal systems, people possess the authority to regulate the commercial exploitation of their identity, appearance, or voice. Voice cloning might be perceived as a violation of these rights. Cloning the Voices of Deceased Artists Using AI to replicate the voices of deceased artists, such as Mohammed Rafi, brings about a whole new set of challenges. Although copyright protection usually lasts for many years after an artist’s passing, the ethical considerations surrounding the use of a deceased artist’s voice without their permission are quite substantial. There are concerns regarding the preservation of the legacy and artistic intentions of deceased musicians. Industry Response Kumar Sanu’s decision to pursue legal protection against AI voice cloning demonstrates a rising recognition of these concerns within the music industry. Other artists and industry professionals are also advocating for the establishment of regulatory frameworks to oversee the utilisation of AI in music production. There are several potential solutions being discussed to address the challenges posed by AI in music. These include establishing licencing protocols for the use of AI-cloned voices, requiring clear disclosure when AI voice cloning is used in a production, and developing specific laws to tackle these unique challenges. The Path Forward As AI technology advances, it is essential for the legal system to stay up to date. Collaboration between the music industry, legislators, and AI developers is crucial in establishing a framework that balances the protection of artists’ rights with the promotion of innovation. This could potentially include the need to revise copyright laws to specifically tackle AI-generated content, setting industry norms for the ethical application of AI in music production, and devising methods for artists to maintain control over and profit from the utilisation of their AI-replicated voices. Conclusion The emergence of AI voice cloning technology brings forth a range of possibilities and complexities for the music industry. Although it presents exciting opportunities for creativity, it also raises serious concerns regarding artists’ rights and the authenticity of their work. As evidenced by Kumar Sanu’s case, it is clear that there is a pressing requirement for the establishment of legal and ethical frameworks to regulate the utilisation of this technology. As we move forward with the more enhanced versions of AI, it’s crucial to find a harmony between technological advancement and safeguarding artists’ rights. It is crucial to establish thoughtful regulation and foster industry cooperation to ensure that AI positively impacts the creative ecosystem of the music industry.

Read More »