Copyright Law | Intellepedia

Who Produced Money, and Who Owns the Copyright?

In the case of R. Kishore Kumar v. M S R R Cine Productions, the court decided who qualified as the producer and copyright owner of MANI, which was censored as MONEY. The court said that copyright ownership did not depend only on the name in the censor certificate. It depended on who took the initiative and responsibility for making the film, and the court found that Kishore Kumar had done so.

No Copyright in a Golf Swing of Ideas

In the case of Gurbaaz Pratap Singh Mann vs Kunwar Raghav Bhandari and Ors., the Delhi High Court looked at whether the defendants had copied the plaintiff’s protected expression in a golf format. It held that similarities related to ideas and game mechanics do not amount to infringement. It found that the defendants had not reproduced any protectable expression from the plaintiff’s work.

Copy Paste Creativity Fails the Originality Test

In the case of Bombay Metal Works (P) Limited vs Tara Singh Prop. R.S. Industries (Regd), a dispute arose over competing packaging designs for bicycle parts. The petitioner challenged the respondent’s copyright registrations on the ground that the designs were copied. The court looked at whether the impugned works were original and whether the registrations could stand.

Images Copyright and AI Getty Vs. Stable Diffusion

In the case of Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd, Getty Images sued Stability AI, the developer of the Stable Diffusion generative AI model, alleging that the system had been trained on millions of copyrighted photographs from Getty Images’ websites. Getty Images argued that both the outputs generated by the AI system and the AI model itself infringed copyright. During the proceedings, Getty Images abandoned the claim relating to infringing outputs after the prompts used to generate those outputs were blocked. The High Court then examined whether the Stable Diffusion model itself could constitute an infringing copy and held that the model does not contain or store copies of Getty Images’ photographs and therefore cannot qualify as an infringing copy under UK copyright law.

Intellepedia’s Top Copyright Articles of 2025: A Year in Review

Explore the top Indian copyright cases and policy changes of 2025, including AI-related rulings, music licensing reforms, and major court decisions.

From Fine Dining to Trademark Fighting: The Dakshin Breakup Story

In the case of ITC Limited & Anr. vs Adyar Gate Hotels Limited, the court declined to restrain a former collaborator from using the restaurant brand ‘DAKSHIN’. Despite ITC’s registrations, the court held that past agreements, shared use, and acquiescence over decades created factual disputes that must be resolved at trial.

Use of copyright works for AI in India: One Nation One License One Payment

The DPIIT consultation paper ‘One Nation One License One Payment’ proposes a hybrid blanket licence–royalty framework for AI training on copyrighted works in India. This post sets out the proposed mechanism, key stakeholder positions and the timeline for filing comments with DPIIT.

Can You Copyright a Product Photo When Design Is Registered? Madras HC Clarifies

A wooden desk with engineering blueprints and technical drawings spread out. Two printed photographs of a pump assembly lie on the blueprints.

The Madras High Court has clarified that a product photograph can be copyrighted even if the product’s design is registered. The Court held that Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act does not bar copyright in a photograph of a registered design, as the two are distinct forms of intellectual property.

Court favors AR Rahman, rejects claims that Dagar Brothers composed Shiva Stuti

Music composer at studio desk with headphones; banner text reads “Court favors AR Rahman, rejects claims Dagar Brothers composed Shiva Stuti.”

The Delhi High Court ruled that the Dagar Brothers were not the authors of Shiva Stuti, setting aside an earlier order and supporting AR Rahman’s appeal. The decision clarifies that authorship and originality are essential for copyright protection in Indian classical music.

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.