Summary
Just a few years back, copyright owners struggled to stop infringement and secure meaningful remedies. But, over the last five to seven years, that position has changed as several Indian courts have become more responsive to copyright infringement claims. Quick injunctions, ex parte orders, damages, and costs being granted by courts have strengthened enforcement, but this positive development has also created room for misuse and abuse of copyrights by unscrupulous copyright holders. Some copyright owners have now started using threats of civil and criminal action to extract disproportionate compensation, especially in software, music and image copyright claims. Unless this copyright troll like behaviour is controlled, the Indian copyright system might not serve the interests of creative authorship, and may become a tool for intimidatory tactics around copyrights.
Copyrights, Infringement, and Intimidation
There was a time when copyright owners in India found it extremely difficult to stop infringement. Unauthorised copying, public performance, online use, and commercial exploitation of creative works were rampant, and remedies were often slow. A copyright owner could send notices, file a suit, and ask for an injunction, but the process did not always move fast enough to prevent continuing harm. Damages were also difficult to secure in many cases, and infringers often treated litigation as a distant risk rather than an immediate consequence.
But, that position has changed over the last five to seven years. Courts such as the Delhi High Court, Bombay High Court, Madras High Court, Bangalore Civil Court, and several others have now become more responsive to copyright infringement claims. Today, copyright owners are able to obtain quick injunctions, John Doe orders, commission appointments, blocking orders, damages, and costs in appropriate cases. Interim orders that earlier took several months are now often granted within days or weeks.
As a natural consequence, this change has strengthened the hands of copyright owners seeking to enforce their rights. Now, a photograph copied from a website can be removed before it spreads further, a song used or sought to be used without permission can be restrained before an event or business continues with the use, and pirated content, copied artwork, unauthorised designs, and digital creatives can be held down before they cause greater loss. For genuine copyright owners, the improved court response has made the copyright system meaningful and useful in promoting their business interests in copyrights.
Copyrights and Ex Parte Orders
As a part of their copyright friendly approach, courts have today become more willing to grant ex parte injunctions in copyright cases. Ex parte orders are orders passed without hearing the opposite party, and these orders may sometimes be granted at the admission stage or on the first hearing date. Once granted, ex parte orders begin to operate immediately, and are often difficult to vacate quickly. In urgent cases, such orders may be necessary because advance notice may allow the infringer to remove evidence, continue the use, shift the activity, or make the remedy ineffective.
However, some courts and judges have become so convinced about intellectual property claims that injunctions are sometimes granted at very low thresholds. Today, basic infringement claims, general ownership assertions, generic screenshots, private investigation reports, vague online links, and allegations of unauthorised use may be sufficient to secure broad relief at the first hearing itself. What began as a necessary response to rampant infringement has now become a powerful intimidatory tool in the hands of copyright owners.
Intimidatory Tactics and Copyright Troll Like Behaviour
While aiding genuine copyright owners, the swing in favour of stronger copyright enforcement has also created an unintended consequence. Some copyright owners, and those acting on their behalf, have started using the improved response of courts and enforcement authorities as a base for intimidatory tactics. What was meant to protect genuine creative rights is, in some cases, being used to threaten parties, raise bloated claims, and force quick payments without giving the recipient a fair opportunity to understand or respond to the claim.
These tactics are generally built around fear and threats of civil and criminal action. A legal notice may refer to injunctions, damages, costs, police complaints, raids, seizure, prosecution, and business disruption. It may demand payment within a short time, and may warn that failure to pay will lead to immediate action. The language is used to make the alleged use look like a serious illegal act, even where the issue may only relate to a licence dispute, a vendor supplied work, a limited online use, or an accidental use of copyrighted material.
In many instances, these notices are sent in bulk to several parties identified through automated or semi automated systems. They may include vague and hazy registration details, identification numbers, links to works, screenshots, and comparison charts to create the impression of a fully established infringement claim. On that basis, large compensation demands are made, sometimes running into lakhs or crores. The recipient is often expected to pay first and ask questions later, and in some cases, even existing licensees may receive such notices because enforcement has been outsourced or automated without proper verification.
Unlike regular notice exchanges between lawyers, these communications are not always meant to understand the other side or resolve the issue fairly. They often do not give clear details of copyright ownership, licence chain, authority to enforce, scope of rights, exact act of infringement, or the basis for calculating compensation. Instead, they shift the burden to the recipient to prove why payment should not be made, although the claimant should first establish its right, authority, and claim. This is where copyright enforcement begins to resemble troll like behaviour.
Music, Image, Software, and Digital Content Claims
This practice is today visible in music, image, software, and digital content claims. In the music space, restaurants, cafés, hotels, gyms, retail stores, weddings, corporate events, exhibitions, and public functions may receive notices alleging unauthorised use of songs. Many such uses may require licences, and copyright owners are entitled to enforce their rights. But, when these are intimidatory and troll like notices, they do not clearly identify the songs used, rights involved, claimant’s authority, licence required, or basis for the amount demanded, while threatening injunctions, damages, costs, police complaints, raids, seizure of sound systems, and interruption of business.
Image and photograph claims follow a similar pattern in the online space. A business may have used one photograph on an old webpage, blog post, social media creative, presentation, or marketing material. Once a notice is received, the image may be removed immediately. Despite this, the notice may continue to demand a large amount without explaining the normal licence value, ownership chain, licence terms, or actual loss. A careless use, vendor lapse, or misunderstanding may be described as wilful infringement, piracy, dishonest commercial exploitation, or unlawful commercial gain, and the recipient may be threatened with takedowns, damages, criminal complaints, and reputational consequences.
The same approach is also visible in software, fonts, templates, online content, design elements, and other digital assets. Some claims may be genuine, especially where pirated software or copied content is being commercially used. However, when notices refer to audits, inspections, police complaints, seizure of computers, criminal prosecution, damages, costs, and business disruption without explaining the licence terms, alleged violation, period of use, or basis for calculating the claim, the process becomes more about pressure than enforcement. The right may exist, but the demand then functions like a penalty imposed outside the court system.
Handling Intimidatory Notices
Recipients of copyright notices must not ignore them. Copyright infringement can have serious civil and criminal consequences in appropriate cases. However, a legal notice is not a judgment, and a threat of criminal action does not prove criminal wrongdoing. A notice filled with strong language, short timelines, and threats of raids or criminal complaints must therefore be handled carefully, not fearfully.
Before paying large amounts, recipients may consider taking a few practical steps:
- Examine the work involved, the ownership claimed, the claimant’s authority, and the exact use alleged.
- Review the licence position, vendor contracts, invoices, emails, and other records relating to the work.
- Ask for documents showing ownership, authority, licence chain, exact infringement, and the basis for calculating compensation.
- Remove disputed material where appropriate, without admitting liability or accepting inflated demands.
- Assess if the claims of infringement are valid or not.
- Check if the use being claimed as infringement is exempted under the copyright law, or amounts to fair use.
- Seek professional advice where the claim is unclear, excessive, unsupported, or accompanied by threats of criminal action.
While copyrights have to be respected, copyright owners or others claiming to be owners must not be permitted to use uncertainty, threats of raids, criminal complaints, and quick court action as a method of extracting unreasonable payments. Honest users, licensees, and businesses must respect copyright, but they must also resist intimidatory tactics when claims are exaggerated, unsupported, or made without proper basis.
Closing Thoughts
The improved response of Indian courts has made copyright enforcement more effective, and that is a positive development for genuine copyright owners. Quick injunctions, ex parte orders, damages, costs, blocking orders, commissions, and other remedies have helped owners protect works that were earlier difficult to enforce. But, the same enforcement environment has also enabled unscrupulous copyright holders to use intimidatory notices, bloated claims, and threats of civil and criminal action to extract disproportionate compensation.
This is now starkely visible in music, image, software, and digital content claims, where honest users and even licensees may be forced to defend themselves against aggressive and sometimes automated enforcement practices. When enforcement moves from protecting rights to creating fear, it affects not only the recipient of the notice, but also the credibility of the copyright system itself.
Unless this copyright troll like behaviour is controlled, the Indian copyright system may move away from the interests of creative authorship, and become a tool of unscrupulous players looking to wrongfully gain from the system.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this post are personal to the author and are intended only for general information and discussion. They do not constitute legal advice, and readers are encouraged to seek professional advice before acting on any legal issue. Parts of this post were generated using an AI application based on the author’s clear prompting on specific aspects of the topic. Opinions on the subject may differ, and different lawyers, businesses, or stakeholders may take different views based on facts, context, and applicable law.