Introduction: The Remix Revolution and Its Legal Complexities
In the rapid developing world, democratization of the content creation process, through tools such as Instagram reels, YouTube Shorts, and Tik Tok has resulted in the release of an unprecedented level of creative expression and, at the same time, it has threatened the established structures of copyright. The current digital environment of India, which already boasts of more than 500 million people using social media, is built on user-created content, which often features the use of copyrighted material, such as bollywood soundtracks, viral movie clips in the form of a humorous meme. This has generated a triangular tension between creative freedom, platform profitability and protection of intellectual property. The recent scandals such as the aggressive copyright enforcement by Asian News International (ANI) against YouTubers[1] and the legal actions that were filed by Warner Music Group against Tik Tok users [2] have revealed the flaws of current legal frameworks to support the modern digital creativity.
The Copyright act, 1957[3] that was initially created to accommodate the traditional media is now facing the challenges of algorithmic curation, viral content and transformative works. Section 51[4] of the act broadly defines infringement, and Section 52[5]has some exceptions to fair dealing. At the same time Section 70 of the Information Technology Act, 2000[6], provides conditional protection of safe harbor to intermediaries. However, where these provisions meet in the User-Generated Content (UGC) ecosystem is the legal ambiguity that puts both creators and platforms, as well as right holders, in a grey area.
I. The Creator’s Paradox: Between Innovation and Infringement
The law surrounding user-created content creators is gray and at a borderline as creativity and copyright infringement collide. According to Section 51 of Copyright Act[7], infringement occurs when any unauthorized reproduction, adaptation or communication of any copyrighted work to the people is done. Instagram reels with music by bollywood or YouTube short with film clips or memes based on a copied work of art can violate these clauses. Nonetheless, the innovative nature of much UGC makes the application of the traditional infringement standards difficult. The Act in Section 52[8] specifies certain exceptions of fair dealing whereby the use of the copyrighted works can be made under the conditions of criticism, review or reporting of the ongoing events. The Delhi High Court in Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma[9], held that transformative works – those that add commentary, criticism, or a new expression or meaning – may qualify for protection under the doctrine of fair dealing. This principle is particularly relevant to creators of memes and parody content, as well as social media influencers who use edited videos for purposes of critique or commentary. Nevertheless, the fair dealing provisions in India are even more restricted than the fair use doctrine in the United States, with no discretion left to the courts and instead obliging them to apply the given purposes listed in the laws. The business aspect also makes things worse. Fair dealing may also apply to non-commercial parodies or other educational works, but commercial UGC (sponsored Instagram Reels with copyrighted music, branded memes, etc.) generally does not fall within these exceptions. The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 extended fair dealing to deal with cinematograph films and sound recordings to reflect the realities of digital technology, but with operation on restrictive foundations. The creators are caught in the paradox of platforms promoting viral content with the help of an algorithm and copyright law, which may criminalize such creativity with the help of Section 63 and 66, which provide penalties of imprisonment and fines in cases of willful infringement.
This tension is displayed in recent cases such as the ANI vs Youtubers Controversy which shows that intensive enforcement of copyrights can suppress fair commentary and criticism. The exorbitant licensing fees charged by ANI to the content creators such as Mohak Mangal of up to Rs. 48 lakh is an indication of how copyright strikes are being weaponized against transformative uses probably considered as fair dealing.[10] The courts are paying more attention to the fact that fair dealing should be liberally construed so as to save freedom of expression in accordance with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution[11] but in practice it has been inconsistently applied.
II. Platform Liability: From Safe Harbor to Active Participation
Digital intermediaries and user-generated content Platforms (UGC) are in an awkward legal limbo between passive conduits and active content creators. IT Act of 2000[12] gives a conditional protection of no liability in regard to third party content on the site, however, this immunity is diluted when sites go beyond hosting services. The clarification of the Supreme Court in the case of Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishakha Industries[13] highlighted that safe harbor is only limited to the case of intermediaries as neutral facilitators and not knowing or having control over the content that is sent by the intermediaries. However, the recent UGC sites actively curate content using recommendation algorithms, monetize uploads by using advertising, and viral copyrighted content.
The Content ID system on YouTube and the automatic recognition features on Instagram, as well as the licensing of the music library on the Tik Tok platform, evidences the transition of platforms to a new stage of not just being passive hosts but rather managing the content. This modification is going to dispute the traditional assumptions of a safe harbor, and could expose platforms to contributory liability in case they are unable to block repetitive violations.
The rules of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) 2021, requires proactive due diligence procedures, such as the grievance systems, content removal processes, and the timely reaction to the notifications concerning an infringement within 36 hours.[14] Platforms must strike a careful balance between automated content moderation and human oversight to avoid unnecessary blocking of material that qualifies as fair dealing. The risks of algorithmic enforcement without contextual understanding have been demonstrated by experiences on platforms like YouTube, where automated copyright claims can wrongly target transformative content, potentially threatening creators’ channels. Legal developments are increasing the pressure on platforms to align their practices not only with technical compliance but also with broader legal standards. The Delhi High Court, in Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors.[15],clarified that platforms exercising editorial control or monetizing specific content may not qualify for safe harbor protections, highlighting the distinction between active and passive intermediaries. The decision in Ramkumar v. Union of India also stressed the idea that in cases where the content comprises grave offenses, middlemen cannot be neutral, which is an indication that the courts expect to hold the latter more accountable.[16]
The liability of the platform is not limited to copyright but also moral rights as provided in Section 57 of the Act[17]. In case UGC platforms interferes with original works by parodying them or remixing them, creators might argue that they are having their moral interests distorted. Social media hosting this type of content without proper licensing systems and those lacking permission systems by creators are prone to be held liable in the perpetration of moral rights infringement, regardless of whether such use is non-commercial.
III. Rights Holders’ Responsibilities: Licensing, Enforcement, and Fair Access
It is important that copyright holders should take the primary responsibility of developing consistent licensing policies that will accommodate UGC and at the same time safeguard the interests of the copyright owners.[18] A large number of platforms accept blanket synchronization licenses with music labels and recording studios and, in theory, allow users to include content under copyright in platform-specific uses. They are, however, frequently not fully granted, making it difficult to distinguish whether it constitutes commercial application when influencers use licensed music in their sponsored content or brands use trending soundtracks in their marketing campaigns.
The Section 30 of the Copyright Act obliges that direct, explicit, written license be granted by the authorized parties.[19] Unclear licenses and small deviations or lack of uniformity in enforcement of said license can make the further assertion of copyright arbitrary or even unenforceable. This is complicated by collective licensing, which involves several rights holders, such as composers, performers, and labels, all of which might make conflicting claims which must be addressed in coordinated rights grants.
Section 57[20] additionally grants rights holders moral rights such as the right to integrity and attribution which are not limited to economic interests. Even in situations where the economic harm is minor, the meme modification, satirical edit or parody adaptation can violate these moral rights.[21] Nevertheless, such aggressive forms of enforcement on the transformative UGC will lead to its negative reputation and even the accusation of cultural gatekeeping.[22] Striking the balance between ensuring artistic integrity and encouraging creative expression must be approached in subtle ways with consideration of both the rights of creators and social conventions.
The recent litigation trends indicate how rights holders have strategically applied copyright enforcement to achieve larger business goals. The targeted approach of ANI to the YouTubers seems to be aimed at creating the sources of licensing revenues instead of avoiding the actual infringement. Equally, the changing strategies of licensing by music platforms and labels can be seen as changing monetization strategies that can put control over access into perspective. The case of Tik Tok users being sued and further negotiations with the company, which was initiated by the Warner Music Group, show that the realization of copyright takes a tangled turn in the relations between the industry and the user.
The occurrence of the meme economy of India, which is worth more than INR 3,000 crore shows the economic value of transformative UGC.[23] The holders of the rights must be able to strike a balance between ensuring that they enforce the copyright, yet they should also acknowledge that derivative works can add value to the original content and not downgrade it. Trending audio clips, viral memes, and similar materials tend to encourage interaction with original content, and thus collaborative and non-adversarial practices might be in the best interests in the long-term.[24]
IV. Regulatory Evolution: Toward Balanced Innovation Frameworks
The copyright industry in India needs to be recalibrated in its requirements and response to UGC realities without undermining the incentives of creators. Existing frameworks which are tailored to the traditional media distribution sector fail to sufficient support the algorithmic curation, viral transformation, and collaborative creativity of digital platforms. The task of reform has to be inclusive of the various interests of the stakeholders, with the ability to promote innovation and cultural expression.
Section 52[25] on fair dealing could have specific limits set on parody, satire and transformative use by codification into law by Parliament. Other countries such as Canada and United Kingdom have also identified parody as fair dealing purposes and as such, they give legal assurance to satirical material which contributes commentary or criticism to the original work. These amendments would bring the Indian law into modern creative practice without limiting the ability to protect the rights owners against purely exploitative use.
Technological solutions may be used as a good direction to decrease friction between creators, platforms and rights holders. The value of an infrastructural-level rights management system based on blockchain may offer transparent attribution, automatic licensing, and fair distribution of revenues on transformative works. False copyright claims could be reduced if fair dealing analysis were built into Content ID systems, without negating genuine enforcement. Such systems could be automated by machine learning algorithms capable of distinguishing between infringing reproduction and transformative commentary, reserving human review for difficult cases.
Jurisprudence is still developing toward more subtle strategies of digital creativity. Courts are beginning to appreciate that strictness in applying the conventional doctrines on copyright can result in stifling of expression that is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The fair dealing provision which implies that the fair dealing provisions should be given a liberal interpretation in order to uphold freedom of expression implies that the judiciary would be inclined to interpret copyright law in accordance with the contemporary realities. Nevertheless, it is difficult to apply uniformly across jurisdictions and platforms unless there is more explicit statutory guidance on it.
Conclusion and Recommendations
User-generated content and copyright law intersect to form one of the most complex challenges in modern intellectual property law. India’s legal framework must evolve into a proactive system that encourages creativity without undermining the legitimate interests of rights holders. An excessive reliance on takedown mechanisms and remedial enforcement under the existing regime fails to reflect the collaborative and transformative nature of digital creativity that defines contemporary online platforms.
- Amendments to Section 52 should include storytelling, parody, satire, and transformative commentary as recognised forms of fair dealing, providing legal clarity to creators of memes, satire, and critical content while preventing purely commercial exploitation.
- Licensing frameworks should encourage standard-form and open licensing models among platforms, creators, and rights holders, with collective management organisations playing a greater role in ensuring access to copyrighted works and fair compensation.
- The current approach to intermediary liability under Section 79 must clearly distinguish between platforms that merely host content and those that actively curate, promote, and monetise user-generated content.
- Platforms that profit from copyrighted user-generated content should be subject to enhanced due diligence obligations, proportionate to their level of control and monetisation, without harming legitimate commentary, criticism, or fair-dealing uses.
- Creator education initiatives should provide clear and accessible guidance on fair dealing principles, licensing requirements, and best practices for lawful content creation to reduce infringement risks while promoting creativity.
- Judicial capacity building should focus on training courts to handle copyright disputes involving user-generated content and to apply fair dealing principles consistently, particularly in cases involving transformative use.
- Technology integration through artificial intelligence and machine learning should be used to improve content recognition systems and minimise false copyright claims against fair-dealing content.
The future of India’s digital creative economy depends on developing a balanced and equitable framework that recognises both individual creativity and intellectual property rights. Achieving this balance requires coordinated collaboration among creators, platforms, rights holders, and policymakers to design sustainable solutions that promote innovation without infringing legitimate interests. Only through such a comprehensive and forward-looking approach can the Indian legal system effectively address the challenges posed by user-generated content and support the growth of a flourishing digital creative ecosystem in India.
[1] Explained: Why Are YouTubers Accusing News Agency ANI Of Extortion? NDTV (May 28, 2025), available at NDTV
[2] Warner Music Group Files $24 Million Lawsuit Against Crumbl Cookies Over Alleged TikTok and Instagram Infringement, Digital Music News (Apr. 23, 2025), available at Link.
[3] Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14 of 1957, India Code (2021).
[4] Copyright Act, 1957, § 51, No. 14 of 1957, India Code (2021).
[5] Copyright Act, 1957, § 52, No. 14 of 1957, India Code (2021).
[6] Information Technology Act, 2000, § 79, No. 21 of 2000, India Code (2021).
[7] Supra note 2.
[8] Supra note 3
[9] Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, (1996) 16 PTC 670 (India).
[10] ANI Finds Business Niche in Copyright Claims Against YouTubers, THE REPORTERS’ COLLECTIVE (May 18, 2025) Link
[11] INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(a)
[12] Supra Note 4.
[13] Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Visakha Indus., AIR 2020 SC 350 (India).
[14] Yohann Titus Mathew, Rule 3(1)(b), Intermediary Liability, and the Burden of “Reasonable Efforts”, NLSIU Bangalore (IJLT Blog) (Aug. 21, 2025) Link
[15] Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors., CS(COMM) 344/2018, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12036(India).
[16] Ramkumar v. Union of India, W.P. No. 18193 of 2024, Madras High Court (2025) (India).
[17] Copyright Act, 1957, § 57, No. 14 of 1957, India Code (2021).
[18] Prashant Reddy T., The Background Score to the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, 5 NUJS L. Rev. 469 (2012).
[19] Copyright Act, 1957, § 30, No. 14 of 1957, India Code (2021).
[20] Supra Note 15
[21] David A. Simon, Copyright, Moral Rights, and the Social Self, 34 Yale J.L. & Human 1 (2023).
[22] Cathay Y. N. Smith, Creative Destruction: Copyright’s Fair Use Doctrine and the Moral Right of Integrity, 47 Pepperdine L. Rev. 601 (2020).
[23] Team Reelstars, Meme Pages in Trouble: How India’s Meme Creators Face Legal Risks in an INR 3,000 Crore Industry, The Reel Stars (May 22, 2025).
[24] Ben Picozzi, What’s Wrong with Intentionalism? Transformative Use, Copyright Law, and Authorship, 126 Yale L.J. 1408 (2017).
[25] Supra note 3
Authored by: Mr. Tarun Dev Singh and Ms. Manpreet Arora
Mr. Tarun Dev Singh is a Penultimate Year Law Student at Dharmashastra National law University, Jabalpur with a keen interest in Dispute Resolution and Intellectual Property Rights.
Ms. Manpreet Arora is a Penultimate Year Law Student at Dharmashastra National law University, Jabalpur with a keen interest in Corporate laws and Intellectual Property Rights.
Leave a Reply