Copyright infringement punishment in India: the key sections
A plain-English guide to the Copyright Act, 1957 for educators: who owns a recorded lecture, Sections 51, 63, 65A and 65B, civil remedies and what cognizable means.
On this page 9 sections
- Who owns a recorded lecture?
- What counts as infringement: Section 51
- Criminal penalties: Section 63 onwards
- Circumventing protection: Section 65A
- Civil remedies: injunctions and damages
- Cognizable, bailable, compoundable: what it means for a complaint
- Copyright cases worth knowing
- Key takeaways
- Frequently asked questions
Copyright infringement in India is punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 with imprisonment of six months to three years and a fine of ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh, and a repeat conviction under Section 63A carries one to three years and a fine of ₹1 lakh to ₹2 lakh. The Supreme Court has held that the Section 63 offence is cognizable and non-bailable. Separately, the copyright owner can sue for an injunction, damages and the infringer's profits.
Here is how those provisions apply to recorded lectures, notes and test series, using the text of the Copyright Act on India Code.
Who owns a recorded lecture?
Before any penalty matters, you have to show the work is yours. A recorded course usually contains several works, with different first owners:
| Part of the course | What the Act calls it | First owner, by default |
|---|---|---|
| The video recording | A cinematograph film, which includes video films | The producer: whoever takes the initiative and responsibility for making it, usually the institute |
| Notes, slides and question banks | Literary or artistic works | The author, or the employer if an employee wrote them in the course of employment, unless a contract says otherwise |
| The teacher's delivery | A performance; the Act counts a person delivering a lecture as a performer | The teacher holds performer's rights |
| Material by visiting or freelance faculty | Depends on the contract | The faculty member, unless the rights are assigned in writing |
Two provisions deserve attention. An assignment of copyright is valid only in writing, signed by the person assigning it, and should identify the work, the rights, the duration and the territory (Section 19). And a 2012 amendment added a proviso protecting the authors of works incorporated in a film, so an institute that owns the video may not automatically own every script or set of notes inside it. Contracts that spell out who owns recordings and notes, especially with visiting faculty, save arguments later. Registration is optional, but an entry in the Register of Copyrights is prima facie evidence of its particulars; see registering copyright in your course.
What counts as infringement: Section 51
Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights listed in Section 14. For a film, they include making a copy of it (including storing it in any medium), selling or renting copies, and communicating it to the public. For notes and other literary works, they include reproducing the work, issuing copies and communicating it to the public. Under Section 51, copyright is infringed when someone does any of these without a licence, or sells, distributes, exhibits by way of trade or imports infringing copies. In course terms:
- recording a lecture off the screen, or filming it with a phone, makes a copy of the film;
- posting it in a Telegram channel or on a website communicates it to the public, whether or not anyone pays;
- selling access to leaked lectures, or printed copies of your notes, is selling infringing copies;
- distributing copies free can also infringe, if it is on a scale that harms the owner;
- knowingly letting a place be used for profit to communicate the work without permission is covered too.
Section 52 lists acts that are not infringement, such as fair dealing for private use or research, criticism or review, and reproduction by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction. These exceptions are specific, and whether one applies is for a court to decide on the facts.
Criminal penalties: Section 63 onwards
| Section | What it covers | Punishment or effect |
|---|---|---|
| 63 | Knowingly infringing, or abetting infringement of, copyright or another right under the Act | 6 months to 3 years' imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh. Where the infringement was not for gain in the course of trade or business, a court may go lower, for adequate and special reasons. |
| 63A | A second or later conviction under Section 63 | 1 to 3 years and a fine of ₹1 lakh to ₹2 lakh, with the same exception |
| 64 | Police power | A police officer of sub-inspector rank or above can seize infringing copies and the equipment used to make them without a warrant, and must produce them before a magistrate |
| 65 | Knowingly making or possessing "plates", which include duplicating equipment, for making infringing copies | Up to 2 years and a fine |
| 65A | Circumventing an effective technological measure with the intention of infringing | Up to 2 years and a fine |
| 65B | Knowingly removing or altering rights management information, or distributing copies knowing it was removed | Up to 2 years and a fine |
| 69 | Offences by companies | The company and every person then in charge of its business are liable, unless they prove lack of knowledge or due diligence |
Note the word "knowingly" in Section 63. Without knowledge there is no offence under that section, although the infringement can still be a civil wrong.
Circumventing protection: Section 65A
Section 65A came in with the 2012 amendment to protect the technical measures owners use, such as encryption and the access controls in a video player. DRM systems, explained in how DRM works, are a familiar example. Getting around an "effective technological measure" with the intention of infringing is punishable with up to two years and a fine. The Act doesn't define that phrase, and Section 65A(2) permits circumvention for purposes the Act doesn't expressly prohibit, and for lawful investigation, encryption research, authorised security testing and national security, among others. Anyone who helps another person circumvent for such a purpose must keep a record of that person.
The Act treats measures that identify users differently from access protection. The exceptions in Section 65A(2) include measures "intended for identification or surveillance of a user", and the definition of rights management information, which Section 65B protects, excludes "any device or procedure intended to identify the user". So take your lawyer's view before citing Section 65A or 65B for anything other than breaking access protection or stripping ownership information. The sharing itself remains infringement under Sections 51 and 63 either way.
Civil remedies: injunctions and damages
- Injunction, damages and accounts of profits (Section 55). If the defendant proves they didn't know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright existed in the work, the owner gets only an injunction and a share of the profits.
- Infringing copies are treated as the owner's property, which the owner can recover (Section 58).
- Where to sue: the district court where you reside or carry on business, not only where the infringer is (Section 62).
- Unknown or fast-moving infringers: courts grant orders against unnamed defendants and against mirror sites; see dynamic injunctions and John Doe orders.
Civil and criminal routes can run side by side, and many owners begin with a demand letter; our guide covers sending a legal notice for copyright infringement.
Cognizable, bailable, compoundable: what it means for a complaint
| Term | What it means | Section 63 | Sections 65A and 65B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognizable | Police can register an FIR and investigate without a magistrate's order | Yes | No, when charged on their own |
| Bailable | Bail is a matter of right | No; bail is at the court's discretion | Yes |
| Compoundable | The parties can settle the case legally | No | No |
The Supreme Court settled the Section 63 question in Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi on 20 May 2022. An offence punishable with up to three years falls in the category "three years and upwards but not more than seven years", which the schedule to the criminal procedure code treats as cognizable and non-bailable. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced that code from 1 July 2024, uses the same classification. Sections 65A and 65B, with a two-year maximum, fall under "less than three years": non-cognizable and bailable. If a complaint also involves Section 63, BNSS Section 174(4) treats the whole case as cognizable.
Compounding under BNSS Section 359 covers only the listed offences of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Copyright Act has no compounding provision of its own. A private settlement therefore doesn't end a Section 63 case by itself; parties usually have to ask the High Court to quash it.
Cognizable doesn't mean automatic arrest. For offences punishable with up to seven years, BNSS Section 35 allows arrest without a warrant only when conditions such as preventing further offences or tampering with evidence are met, with reasons recorded; otherwise police issue a notice to appear. For offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven, police may also, with a deputy superintendent's permission, hold a preliminary enquiry of up to 14 days before proceeding (BNSS Section 173(3)). For the process, see filing a police complaint.
Copyright cases worth knowing
| Case | Court and year | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi | Supreme Court, 2022 | Section 63 offences are cognizable and non-bailable |
| Neetu Singh v. Telegram FZ LLC | Delhi High Court, 2022 | Telegram directed to disclose details of those running channels that shared an educator's courses |
| UTV Software Communication v. 1337x.to | Delhi High Court, 2019 | Mirror and redirect sites can be added to a blocking order: the dynamic injunction |
| Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries | Delhi High Court, 2016 | Platforms are liable only on specific knowledge of infringing content, which an owner's notice can supply |
Key takeaways
- Section 63: six months to three years and ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh; Section 63A raises the minimum for repeat offenders.
- The offence needs knowledge, and it is cognizable and non-bailable (Knit Pro, 2022).
- Sections 65A and 65B cover circumventing protection and stripping rights information, with up to two years.
- Civil remedies run alongside, and you can sue where you carry on business.
- Put ownership of recordings and notes in writing, especially with visiting faculty.
This is general information, not legal advice. For your situation, speak to a lawyer.
Frequently asked questions
Is copyright infringement a criminal offence?
Yes, when it is done knowingly. Section 63 of the Copyright Act makes knowingly infringing, or abetting infringement, punishable with six months to three years in prison and a fine of ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh. Infringement without knowledge is still a civil wrong, for which the owner can seek an injunction and, depending on the facts, damages or a share of the profits.
Can copyright get you arrested?
It can. The Supreme Court held in 2022 that the Section 63 offence is cognizable and non-bailable, so police can register a case and, where the legal conditions are met, arrest without a warrant. Arrest isn't automatic: for offences punishable with up to seven years, police must record why arrest is necessary and otherwise issue a notice to appear. Bail is at the court's discretion.
What is punishment for copyright infringement?
Under Section 63, imprisonment of six months to three years plus a fine of ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh, with a court able to go lower for special reasons when the infringement wasn't for commercial gain. A second conviction attracts one to three years and ₹1 lakh to ₹2 lakh under Section 63A. Circumventing protection or stripping rights information can add up to two years each.
Can copyright infringement be criminal?
Yes, but not every infringement is a crime. Criminal liability under Section 63 needs the infringer to have acted knowingly, and a prosecution needs evidence the police and courts can use. Many disputes, such as a disagreement with former faculty over who owns recordings, are better handled as civil claims. Knowing commercial piracy, like selling leaked lectures, is where a criminal complaint fits best.