Copyrights | Intellepedia

AI, Copyrights, and Libraries

Libraries exist to promote access to knowledge, but copyright law regulates and sometimes restricts that access. As artificial intelligence enters the picture, the balance becomes even more complex. AI offers libraries the power to catalogue, preserve, and deliver content faster and more efficiently than ever before, but it also raises questions about training data, ownership of outputs, and potential copyright infringement.

This article explains how Indian copyright law applies to libraries, what exceptions protect them, and why AI can be both an opportunity and a risk. It also sets out practical steps libraries can take — from policy frameworks to risk assessments — to embrace AI responsibly and continue their mission of serving education, research, and culture.

Aishwarya Rai Gets Court Relief Against Deepfakes, Fake Merchandise, and Online Impersonation

In the case of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan vs Aishwaryaworld.Com, the Delhi High Court restrained several websites, online sellers, and digital content creators from misusing the identity of the celebrity through unauthorised merchandise, websites, AI-generated impersonations, and obscene deepfakes.

Actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam Flag Use Allowed as Court Finds No Prima Facie Trademark or Copyright Violation

Illustration of an actor beside a film clapperboard, with the headline ‘Actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam flag use allowed; no prima facie trademark or copyright violation.

In the case of G B Pachaiyappan vs Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, the Madras High Court addressed claims of trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off against a political party over its use of a flag allegedly similar to one adopted earlier by a social trust. The court declined to grant interim injunctions.

Disco Dancer Copyright in Court: Remake, Adaptation, or Sequel?

In a recent case involving the iconic film Disco Dancer, the Bombay High Court examined whether a stage musical and a proposed new film were a remake, an adaptation, or a sequel. The Court held that the musical was an adaptation covered by Shemaroo’s rights, but refused to restrain the new film since Shemaroo had not pleaded infringement in its plaint. The order pointed out the difference between remake, adaptation, and sequel under Indian copyright law.

Music Creation and Copyright Transfers

A flat digital illustration shows two hands playing a small keyboard, with a floating orange music note and soundwave above. To the right, there is a large “TRANSFER COPYRIGHT” document featuring a treble clef, signature line, copyright symbol, and a pen, symbolizing music creation and copyright transfer.

In the case of Rajesh Jhaveri v. Saregama India Limited & Anr., the Bombay High Court dismissed a bid for interim injunction restraining Saregama from exploiting songs from three albums. The Court held that assignment agreements executed in the late 1980s granted broad rights to exploit the works “by any and every means w

Internet rights in cinematographic films – Vasuki, Shenbaga Kottai, and Dubai Rani copyright infringement case

The Madras High Court, in a copyright infringement case involving Tamil films Vasuki, Shenbaga Kottai, and Dubai Rani, held that the plaintiff is the sole copyright owner of the internet rights and restrained the defendants from online exploitation. The Court awarded nominal damages for infringement.

When Copyright, AI, and Regulation Interact: Where Does Accessibility Stand?

A friendly blue robot holding a glowing light bulb stands beside the text “When Copyright, AI, and Regulation Interact” written in a bold, stencil-style font on a black background.

In the short time that AI applications and technologies were fully functional, accessibility took a huge step forward by enabling persons with disabilities to create accessible format works. But this seems to be regressing, and unless appropriate steps are taken, the advantage of AI to persons with disabilities may once again be limited to a small percentage of the content being created… Even though the law permits conversion into accessible formats, the tools available to users may no longer support it. This can lead to a situation where a legal right cannot be fully exercised because the available technology, though capable, may no longer facilitate accessible content creation.

Delay in Copyright Lawsuit Costs Plaintiff Urgent Relief and Mediation Exemption

A beige background with a black rectangular stamp reading "URGENTLY REQUIRED" in bold letters. The text is overlaid with a large red "X" inside a red circle, symbolizing cancellation or denial of urgency.

In the case of Inreco Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Nav Records Pvt. Ltd., the Calcutta High Court held that a copyright suit filed without genuine urgency could not bypass pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. The Court revoked the exemption and dismissed the suit.

MS Subbulakshmi Biopic: Who Owns the Copyright over the Script?

A dignified elderly South Indian singer lady in a traditional silk saree and garland, holding a musical instruments, stands center stage with a composed expression. The background features festive lights and garlands, with gold line-art illustrations of a book, pen and idea being expressed through writing on one side and a film crew overlaying the scene on another side.

In a case between Rajiv Menon and Dr. M.P. Somaprasad, the Karnataka High Court was asked to decide who owned the copyright over the script “MS and Bala” for a biopic on M.S. Subbulakshmi. The Court held that the script was an original work of the defendant and not based on the plaintiff’s book.

Compulsory Music License for Events: Delhi HC Rules Against PPL’s Licensing Practices

Image shows corporate event in a banquet hall, where people are dressed in business attire, having drinks and enjoying music.

In a case between Al Hamd Tradenation and PPL, the Delhi High Court ruled that Al Hamd is entitled to a compulsory license because PPL refused to grant a license for a small event at a reasonable fee. The Court stated that Section 31(1)(a) applies to all works, including sound recordings. It observed that demanding an unreasonably high fee constitutes a refusal to license. The Court will now decide the appropriate royalty and licensing conditions.