Introduction
Copyright law helps protect original works made by creators. Yet, if these rules are too strict, they can block new ideas, learning, and creativity. This is why “fair use” is so important. Fair use is a legal rule that allows people to use copyrighted material in a limited way, without needing permission from the owner. It creates a needed balance. A main challenge is understanding what exactly qualifies as fair use and how judges have interpreted this rule throughout the years.
What is Fair Use?
Fair use is a specific rule within copyright law. It allows you to use copyrighted material – like a song, a book, or a photo – without getting permission from the owner.
However, this is only permitted in certain situations. The main idea behind fair use is to encourage new creative works, education, and free expression, rather than stopping them.
For instance, you might use part of a copyrighted work if you are:
- Writing a review or criticism of it: e.g., showing a few seconds of a movie to review it, or quoting a paragraph from a book to analyze it.
- Reporting the news: e.g., using a copyrighted photo of an event in a news report.
- Using it for teaching or research in a classroom: e.g., showing a short video clip to students for educational purposes.
- Creating a parody (a humorous imitation): e.g., making a funny version of a famous song.
Fair Use in the Age of AI
In recent years, lawsuits have focused on whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) can use copyrighted material for training. This has brought the concept of “fair use” back into the spotlight. Courts must now decide if training AI models with copyrighted text and images counts as fair use. This involves determining if such use transforms the original material, is not for commercial profit, and offers benefits to society.
Global Perspective
The U.S. follows “fair use,” a flexible legal rule for using copyrighted material. In contrast, many other countries adhere to “fair dealing,” a much stricter principle. Fair dealing only allows use for very specific purposes, such as quoting a few lines for academic research, using a short movie clip for a critique, or creating a song parody. This differs from the U.S. approach, where courts examine four broad factors to decide if a particular use is “fair.”
Legal Framework in India
The principle of fair dealing finds its statutory embodiment in Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. This particular section enumerates distinct actions that do not amount to copyright infringement, thereby serving as recognized derogations from the copyright proprietor’s sole entitlements.
Section 52(1) – Fair Dealing Provisions
Pursuant to this subsection, specific applications are deemed permissible “fair dealing” when undertaken for the following purposes:
- Personal or private utilization, encompassing research activities
- Critique or analytical review
- Dissemination of current events and ongoing affairs
- Application in relation to judicial proceedings
- Academic or instructional deployment
Difference Between Fair Use and Fair Dealing
Although “fair use” represents a more expansive legal principle applied in the United States, India adheres to a more circumscribed doctrine known as “fair dealing,” whose application is confined to the specific objectives enumerated within the Act. In contrast to the U.S. approach, where judicial bodies evaluate multiple criteria to ascertain fairness (such as the purpose, character, quantity of material employed, and market impact), Indian legislation presents a more organized and constrained compilation of allowable uses.
Important Judicial Pronouncements
Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma (1996)
Facts: The defendant disseminated a dramatic work that drew, in part, from the plaintiff’s protected literary creation.
Held: The Kerala High Court found in favour of the defendant, determining that fair dealing includes the right to criticize, and the new creation served a transformative objective.
Significance: Established that transformative use may fall under fair dealing if it serves criticism or review.
The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services (2016)
Facts: Students and staff at Delhi University used photocopies of textbook chapters compiled into course materials. Publishers alleged copyright infringement.
Held: The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the photocopy shop and university, stating that duplication for educational purposes is covered by fair dealing.
Significance: Affirmed the right to education and recognized non-commercial academic use as fair dealing.
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Hamar Television Network Pvt. Ltd. (2010)
Facts: A TV broadcaster used segments of copyrighted music in a program reviewing audio content.
Held: The Delhi High Court held that use for critique and appraisal was permissible under Section 52.
Significance: Reinforced that evaluative broadcasting may fall within fair dealing.
Examples of Fair Dealing in Practice
- Schools and Universities: Teachers may copy book chapters for lessons.
- News Channels: Use short clips or music for reviews or reporting.
- Students and Researchers: Quote small portions in academic work.
- Internet Memes/Parodies: Use snippets for humor or commentary (legality in India varies).
Online Archives – Fair Use in the Digital Era
- YouTube Content: Reaction or educational videos may qualify if transformative.
- Online Education: Uploading material for classroom use may be fair dealing.
- Online Archives: Digitization by libraries for research or preservation may be exempt.
Limitations of Fair Dealing in India
- Usage is goal-specific and limited.
- Commercial use is generally not protected.
- No four-part test like in the U.S.; judges rely on legislative intent.
- No clear rule on how much material can be used.
Fair Use in the Digital Era
- Online Videos: Reaction or commentary videos may be allowed if transformative.
- Online Teaching: Uploading materials for student use may be fair if strictly educational.
- Digital Libraries: Scanning old works for archives or research may be permissible.
International Perspective on Copyright Exceptions
United States
The U.S. uses a flexible “fair use” doctrine with a four-factor test. It allows transformative uses, even commercial ones. Example: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. upheld a parody as fair use.
United Kingdom
The U.K. follows a stricter “fair dealing” model, allowing only specific uses like research or criticism. Parody must fit within these categories to be permitted.
India
India also uses “fair dealing” with limited exceptions, but courts have interpreted it progressively. Example: The Delhi University case allowed photocopying for education under fair dealing.
Recommendations for Law Reform
We need clearer rules for using copyrighted material. This means creating a simple four-part test to decide if something is fair use, and allowing more modern creative works like parodies, spoofs, and ‘remixes’ to be considered fair use. Also, the rules for digital rights, especially for online learning and content made by artificial intelligence, need to be much easier to understand.
Conclusion
Fair dealing is a crucial legal rule in India. It’s essential for making sure people can access information, protect their right to free speech, and help education and research move forward. The rules for fair dealing in India are stricter than the “fair use” rules in other countries. However, Indian courts have been taking a more modern and practical approach when they interpret these rules. Since the internet is constantly changing how people create and share content, India might need to update its copyright laws. A more flexible and broader rule for fair use could be very important for future changes to the law.
References
- The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4724.
- Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, AIR 1996 Ker 291.
- The Copyright Act, 1957 (India).
- Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Hamar Television Network Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 43 PTC 734 (Del).
- S. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (1976).
- (n.d.). Study on exceptions and limitations.
