Copyright Infringement Online: Takedown Notices and Suits in India

What counts as copyright infringement online?

Under section 51 of the Copyright Act, copyright is infringed when someone, without a licence, does anything that only the owner has the right to do: reproduce the work, issue copies to the public, communicate it to the public, or make an adaptation or translation. Uploading your book as a PDF, re-posting your video on another channel, using your photograph on a website, putting your song in a reel or advert without a licence, and distributing cracked copies of your software all fall within this.

Giving credit does not cure infringement. Many people believe that tagging the creator or writing "all rights to the owner" makes copying lawful. It does not. Nor does the fact that the copy was free, that the content was available publicly, or that only a part was taken, if the part taken is substantial in quality, not just quantity.

There are real exceptions. Section 52 allows fair dealing for private or personal use including research, for criticism or review, and for reporting current events. A short clip used in a genuine review, or a quotation in a critical article, can be lawful. Courts look at the purpose, the amount taken and whether the use competes with the original. A complete upload of a paid course is never fair dealing; a thirty second excerpt in a critical video essay may well be.

What should I do first when I find my content copied?

Capture the evidence before you do anything else. Infringers delete content the moment they receive a notice, and platforms remove it, which is the outcome you want but leaves you with nothing to show later if you need to sue or claim damages. Take full screenshots that show the URL, the date and the account name, record the screen while scrolling through the page or channel, download the infringing file where you lawfully can, and note view counts, subscriber numbers, prices charged and payment details.

Then establish your own position. Locate the original file with its metadata, your registration certificate if you have one, and the contracts that show you own the work, such as assignments from freelancers or co-authors. If you do not own the work outright, for example because a publisher or label holds the rights, the takedown should come from or with the consent of the rights holder.

Electronic evidence has to be proved in a particular way in court. Under section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, a certificate is needed with electronic records, and the person who captured them should be able to explain how. Our post on electronic evidence and the section 63 BSA certificate explains what that certificate must contain.

Evidence to capture before sending any notice

• Full page screenshots showing the URL, date, time and account or site name.
• A screen recording scrolling through the page, channel or group, including member or view counts.
• Downloaded copies of the infringing file, where you can lawfully obtain them.
• Prices, payment links, UPI IDs or gateway names if the infringer is selling your work.
• Domain registration and hosting details from public lookup tools, for websites.
• Your original file with metadata, drafts and the date of first publication.
• Your registration certificate and ownership documents, if any.
• A simple log listing each URL, when it was found and what action you took.

Who do you send the takedown notice to?

Send it to whoever can remove the content fastest. On social media and video platforms, that is the platform itself through its copyright complaint form, because the uploader may be anonymous and will not respond. For a standalone website, it may be the site owner, the hosting company, or both. For piracy sites hidden behind privacy services, the hosting provider, the content delivery network and the domain registrar are the practical targets. Search engines have their own forms to de-list infringing URLs, which helps when the site itself will not cooperate.

Where the infringer is a business you can identify, such as a competitor using your photographs or software, a direct notice to them often works better than a platform complaint, because it also opens the way to a licence fee or settlement. Payment gateways and marketplaces can also act against sellers of pirated material, as their own terms prohibit it.

Takedown routes by platform type

Foreign platforms often run copyright forms modelled on United States law. You can use them as an Indian owner; what matters is that the notice is accurate and specific.

How to send a takedown notice that works

1. Identify your work precisely

   Name the work, its author and owner, the date of first publication and any registration number. Attach or link to the original so the reviewer can compare.

2. List each infringing URL

   Give the exact link to each post, video, file or listing, not just the channel or home page. Platforms act on specific URLs and ignore general complaints.

3. State your ownership and the lack of licence

   Say that you own the copyright or act for the owner, and that the uploader has no licence. If you are an agent or advocate, say so and keep the authority on file.

4. Add the statutory basis where it helps

   For Indian hosts and websites, refer to section 52(1)(c) of the Copyright Act and Rule 75 of the Copyright Rules 2013, and to the grievance mechanism under the IT Rules 2021. For platforms, use their own form and fields.

5. Make only claims you can stand behind

   Platform forms ask you to confirm good faith and accuracy. A false claim can lead to suspension of your own account, and an unjustified threat of legal action can be challenged under section 60 of the Copyright Act.

6. Follow up and record the outcome

   Note the ticket number and the date of removal or refusal. If the platform asks for more, reply promptly. If the content returns, file again with the new URL and mention the earlier ticket.

The 21 day rule under section 52(1)(c)

Section 52(1)(c) of the Copyright Act protects transient or incidental storage of a work, which covers hosting providers and similar services, but only up to a point. Once the person providing the storage receives a written complaint from the copyright owner that the stored copy infringes, it must refrain from facilitating access for 21 days, or until it receives an order from a competent court. If no court order arrives within 21 days, it may restore access.

Rule 75 of the Copyright Rules 2013 sets out what the notice must contain: details of the work, proof of ownership, the location of the infringing copy, and an undertaking that the owner will file for a court order within 21 days. It also requires the host to act on a valid notice within 36 hours. In practice this means the notice buys you three weeks. If you expect the infringer to fight back, use that time to prepare the suit, because restoration after 21 days is the default.

Separately, section 79 of the IT Act gives intermediaries a safe harbour from liability only if they observe due diligence and act on actual knowledge. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held in MySpace v Super Cassettes (2016) that, for copyright, a specific notice from the owner identifying the infringing material is enough to require action; the intermediary does not need a court order first. General complaints that do not identify the content do not create that obligation.

The laws that apply

What if the platform ignores the notice or the content keeps coming back?

First check your notice. Most refusals come from vague complaints, missing ownership details, or a request that covers fair dealing material. Re-file with specific URLs and documents. If a platform with Indian users still does not act, write to its grievance officer under the IT Rules 2021, whose details must be published on the platform. The Rules require the grievance officer to acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours and dispose of it within 15 days, with faster action required for requests to remove content in the prohibited categories, which include material that infringes copyright. A decision of the grievance officer can be appealed to the Grievance Appellate Committee within 30 days.

Repeat uploads are a different problem. Large owners use automated matching tools offered by the bigger platforms, which block re-uploads of registered reference files. Smaller owners may not have access to those tools, and for them a court order directing the platform to remove all copies, including future ones that match, is often the only lasting fix. Telegram channels that spring back under new names, and websites that move to new domains every few weeks, are classic cases for court relief rather than notice after notice.

Should you send a legal notice to the infringer first?

Often yes, but not always. A legal notice works well against an identifiable business that used your work without thinking: a company that lifted your photographs for its website, an institute using your study material, an app that copied your interface text. Many such disputes end with removal, a licence fee or a written undertaking. A notice also shows the court later that you gave the other side a chance.

Do not send a notice first when the infringer is a piracy operation that will simply move the content, destroy records or file a pre-emptive case against you. In those cases the advantage lies in going to court without warning and asking for an ex parte injunction and, where needed, a local commissioner to visit premises and seize evidence. Under the Commercial Courts Act 2015, pre-institution mediation under section 12A is mandatory unless the suit seeks urgent interim relief; IP suits that genuinely need an immediate injunction are usually filed without it, but the plaint must show the urgency is real.

In copyright matters that reach Advocate B.K. Singh, the decision between a notice and a surprise filing usually turns on one question: can this infringer make the evidence disappear overnight? If yes, the notice waits until after the injunction. Whatever you send, keep it accurate. Section 60 allows a person who receives groundless threats of infringement proceedings to sue the person making them.

Filing a copyright infringement suit: which court in Delhi?

A copyright suit is a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act 2015 when the specified value is ₹3 lakh or more, which most commercial infringement claims are. In Delhi, suits valued above ₹2 crore go to the Delhi High Court, where they are heard by the IP Division; lower value suits go to the commercial courts in the district court complexes such as Saket, Tis Hazari, Patiala House, Karkardooma, Rohini and Dwarka. In Noida and Ghaziabad, the district courts at Surajpur and Ghaziabad have commercial courts.

Section 62 of the Copyright Act gives the owner an extra option on where to sue: a court within whose jurisdiction the owner resides or carries on business, in addition to the usual places where the defendant is or where the infringement happened. For a Delhi based author or company, that usually means a Delhi court even if the infringer is elsewhere, although courts look closely at whether the plaintiff really carries on business where it claims.

The suit asks for a permanent injunction, damages or an account of profits, delivery up of infringing copies and costs. With it comes an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for a temporary injunction, often heard on the first day. If the case for urgency and secrecy is made out, the court may grant an ex parte ad interim injunction and appoint a local commissioner. Delay is the main enemy at this stage: an owner who knew about the copying for a year and did nothing finds it much harder to persuade a court that the matter is urgent. Our page on the commercial courts in Delhi explains the procedure and timelines that follow, including the strict deadline for the written statement.

Dynamic injunctions, unknown defendants and blocking piracy sites

Piracy sites rarely disclose who runs them, and they hop from domain to domain. The Delhi High Court has developed remedies for this. Owners can sue unknown defendants, sometimes called John Doe or Ashok Kumar defendants, and obtain orders against them. The court can direct the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to have internet service providers block access to named websites.

Because blocked sites reappear as mirrors and redirects, the High Court also grants dynamic injunctions: the owner can apply to extend the order to new domains that carry the same infringing content, by filing an affidavit showing the link to the original site, without starting a fresh suit. For live sports and new film releases, the court has extended this further to cover websites that are likely to infringe content not yet released. These orders are most useful to owners who face repeated, large scale piracy, such as film producers, broadcasters, publishers of popular books and online course creators.

Courts can also direct platforms, domain registrars and banks to disclose the identity and payment details of anonymous infringers, and to freeze or suspend accounts used for piracy. If the infringing activity is tied to a domain name that imitates your brand, the domain dispute routes described in domain name disputes under INDRP and UDRP may run alongside the suit.

What can you realistically get from a suit?

The most valuable relief is usually the injunction, interim and then final, because it stops the copying and can be enforced against future copies. Damages are available, and the Delhi High Court has in suitable cases awarded both compensatory damages and costs against defendants who did not contest or who acted in obvious bad faith. Under the Commercial Courts Act, costs follow the event more strictly than in ordinary civil suits, so a successful plaintiff can recover a meaningful part of its litigation costs.

Be realistic about money, though. Anonymous piracy operators often have nothing to pay, and a decree against them is mainly useful for the injunction and blocking. Against an identifiable business, a strong interim order frequently leads to settlement on terms that include removal, payment and an undertaking. Many IP suits in Delhi are referred to mediation once the interim stage is over, and a settlement recorded before the court is enforceable like a decree. Suits that go to full trial take years, which is another reason most of the real work happens in the first few hearings.

When does a criminal complaint make sense?

Section 63 makes it an offence to knowingly infringe copyright, punishable with imprisonment from six months to three years and a fine of ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh. In Knit Pro International v State of NCT of Delhi (2022), the Supreme Court held that the offence under section 63 is cognizable and non-bailable, so the police can register an FIR and act. Section 64 allows a police officer of the rank of sub-inspector or above to seize infringing copies and equipment.

The criminal route fits commercial piracy with physical premises or identifiable operators: a shop selling pirated software installations, a printing unit producing pirated books, a business distributing cracked licence keys. It is a poor fit for an individual who re-posted your video, and using the threat of an FIR to extract payment in a minor dispute can backfire badly. Where the piracy is run through online channels and payments, the local police or the cyber police station may also look at offences under the IT Act and the BNS; our cyber crime lawyer page covers that side. Criminal and civil proceedings can run together, but they are separate cases with separate standards.

Received a copyright strike or takedown yourself?

If your own content was removed on a copyright claim, read the claim before reacting. If the claimant genuinely owns the material you used and you had no licence, removing it and settling is usually wiser than a counter-notice. If you created the work, hold a licence, or your use is fair dealing such as review, criticism or news reporting, you can file a counter-notice through the platform. Platforms typically restore content after a counter-notice unless the claimant shows that it has gone to court within the platform's stated period.

Keep your licence documents, purchase receipts for music or stock footage, and drafts that show your own work. If a competitor is filing false claims to take down your content, the platform's abuse process, section 60 of the Copyright Act and, in some cases, a suit for damages for wrongful interference are available. A pattern of false strikes against a business channel is something a court will take seriously if you have documented each one.

Mistakes copyright owners make online

• Sending the notice before saving evidence. Once the content is gone, proving the scale of infringement and claiming damages becomes much harder.
• Complaining about a channel instead of URLs. Platforms act on specific links. A general complaint is usually closed without action.
• Not owning what you claim. If a freelancer made the video or a publisher holds the rights, the claimant must be the actual owner or have its authority.
• Letting months pass. Delay undermines the case for an urgent injunction even though the limitation period for damages is three years.
• Threatening criminal action in a small dispute. It invites a section 60 action or a complaint against you and rarely helps settlement.
• Ignoring the 21 day window. Under section 52(1)(c), access may be restored if no court order is obtained within 21 days.

What to do this week

Build your evidence log today, with each URL, screenshot and date. Gather your ownership documents and, if the work is commercially important and not yet registered, start a registration; our post on copyright registration for books, software and music explains how. Then send specific takedown notices to the platforms and hosts, and diarise the 21 day date for any notice sent under section 52(1)(c).

If the copying is commercial, repeated or tied to someone you can identify, take advice before sending a legal notice, because the order of steps matters. The team of Advocate B.K. Singh at B.K. Singh & Associates can review the evidence and tell you whether notices are enough or a suit is needed; send the links and documents through our online enquiry form. The wider cyber law work is described on our cyber laws page.