Copyright Law | Intellepedia

Ilaiyaraaja’s Tune, Saregama’s Recording: Who Gets to Press Play?

In the case of Mr Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited, a well known song from Moodu Pani became the centre of a layered copyright dispute. The court separated the music, lyrics, and sound recording, and asked a simple but difficult question: when a film song is recreated, whose permission is truly needed?

Sacred Cow, Groundless Threat: Delhi High Court on Copyrights and Amazon

In the case of Avaia Ventures Private Limited v. Wildship Enterprises Private Limited, a competitor filed successive copyright complaints on Amazon against a seller of silver plated Kamdhenu cow idols, armed with no copyright registration, no court proceedings, and a product page URL where the copyright number should have been. The Delhi High Court found that filing platform level takedown complaints without ever approaching a court of competent jurisdiction is a groundless threat within the meaning of Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court also held, at a prima facie stage, that the Kamdhenu cow with calf is a sacred motif in the public domain and that mass commercial production of more than fifty units had, in any event, extinguished any copyright the complainant may have claimed.

Dhurandhar Song Rights: Oye Oye, Not So Easy

Promotional banner for “The Revenge: Dhurandhar” showing a lone man walking through a fiery, orange-lit urban setting, with bold metallic title text in the foreground and flames surrounding the scene.

In the case of Trimurti Films Private Limited v. B62 Studios Private Limited & Ors., the plaintiff claimed copyright ownership over Tirchi Topiwale from the film Tridev and objected to its use and remix in Dhurandhar: The Revenge. The defendants relied on a 1988 assignment agreement and earlier uses of songs from Tridev in other films. The court refused interim relief after considering the agreement, prior conduct, suppression allegations, and balance of convenience.

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.

Banner image with the title "Intellepedia's Top Copyright Articles of 2025: A Year in Review" on the left, and a stylized chalkboard graphic on the right featuring the word "COPYRIGHT" surrounded by related terms like "licensing," "media," "ownership," and "design."

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.

Tag: Copyright Law