When Vijay’s Bigil released in October 2019, the copyright questions it generated were familiar ones: who owned the music, who was licensing the satellite rights, and how would the producers respond to the piracy that inevitably followed every major Tamil release within hours. Those questions were important then, and they remain important now. But between 2019 and 2026, the Indian entertainment industry experienced a legal transformation that has turned copyright from a backstage concern into a front-page battleground.
In 2024 alone, the Bombay High Court ruled that a singer’s voice its specific timbre, vocal technique, and interpretive style is a protectable property right that AI cannot replicate without consent. The Delhi High Court issued a sweeping injunction against unnamed defendants worldwide covering present and future infringers for misusing an actor’s persona in AI-generated content. And in December 2025, courts in Delhi and Mumbai granted emergency orders within weeks to multiple film stars whose digital likenesses had been weaponised in synthetic content. India’s entertainment copyright law is now being written in real time, case by case, in response to technologies that did not exist when the Copyright Act, 1957 was last substantially amended.
This guide covers four dimensions of Indian film copyright in 2026: what the law has always protected in cinema, how OTT platforms changed the enforcement landscape, when remakes and adaptations cross the line, and what the AI and deepfake revolution means for every creator and performer in the industry.
The governing law: Cinematograph films are protected as distinct works under Section 13(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957. A “cinematograph film” is defined under Section 2(f) as any work of visual recording on any medium produced through a process from which a moving image may be produced by any means and includes a sound recording accompanying such visual recording. This definition encompasses theatrical releases, OTT originals, web series, short films, and any other audio-visual production. The producer of a cinematograph film is the first owner of the copyright under the proviso to Section 17 of the Act.
Dimension 1 — What Copyright Protects in a Film: The Legal Architecture
What elements of a film are separately protected under Indian copyright law?
A feature film is not a single copyright work it is a bundle of separately owned copyrights that have been assembled, by contract, to produce what the audience sees on screen. Understanding this bundle is the foundation of every licensing dispute, remake negotiation, and infringement claim in the industry.
The cinematograph film itself is protected as a whole under Section 13(1)(b). The producer typically the production company is the first owner of this copyright. This gives the producer the exclusive rights to copy the film, sell copies, broadcast it, communicate it to the public, and make adaptations (including dubbed versions and remakes) under Section 14(d) of the Act.
The underlying literary work the screenplay and dialogue is a separately protected work under Section 13(1)(a), owned by the screenwriter unless assigned to the producer. This is why remake negotiations must address both the film copyright and the underlying script copyright. A producer can hold rights to remake the film without acquiring rights to use the original screenplay and some do not realise this distinction until litigation arises.
Music compositions and lyrics are protected as musical and literary works respectively under Section 13(1)(a), and the recorded performances of those compositions are protected as sound recordings under Section 13(1)(c). The composer retains copyright in the composition; the music label typically holds the sound recording copyright. Following the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, composers and lyricists have an unassignable right to share in royalties for any commercial exploitation of their music, including when their compositions are used in broadcast, OTT streaming, or public performance.
Performances by actors, musicians, and singers are protected as performers’ rights under Section 38 of the Copyright Act, giving performers the right to prevent unauthorised recording, reproduction, and broadcast of their performances for 50 years from the date of performance.
Artistic works including costume design, set design, and film poster artwork attract separate copyright as artistic works under Section 13(1)(a).
What does the idea-expression dichotomy mean for film disputes?
The most foundational principle in film copyright is the distinction between an idea (which cannot be protected) and the expression of that idea (which can). The Supreme Court established this principle for Indian copyright law in the landmark case of R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films [(1978) 4 SCC 118], where a playwright claimed that a Bollywood film had copied his play. The Court held that while both works dealt with the same thematic subject, copyright protects only the specific expression the dialogue, the plot development, the characters as written not the underlying idea or theme.
In practical terms for Indian cinema: a love story set against the backdrop of two feuding families is an idea unprotectable. The specific screenplay, the particular character names and personalities, the distinctive dialogue these are expressions, protectable by copyright. This is why films frequently explore similar themes without infringing each other, but why copying specific scenes, dialogue, or musical compositions constitutes infringement regardless of how different the overall film appears.
Lesson for Tamil and pan-Indian cinema: The proliferation of remakes across language boundaries Tamil to Telugu to Hindi to Malayalam raises constant copyright questions. An official remake, properly licensed from the original producer and screenwriter, is entirely legal. An unofficial remake that reproduces the expression of the original work specific scenes, dialogue, plot points, characters without a licence is infringement, even if it is set in a different city with different actors.
Key Takeaway: A film is a bundle of separately owned copyrights. Producers, composers, lyricists, performers, and screenwriters each hold distinct rights in the same production. Every licensing deal, remake negotiation, and streaming agreement must address each layer of this bundle. Copyright Registration Services — Unimarks Legal Solutions
Dimension 2 — OTT Platforms and the Digital Copyright Battlefield
How has the shift to OTT streaming changed film copyright enforcement in India?
When Bigil released in 2019, the primary digital copyright threat to producers was camcording piracy films recorded in theatres and uploaded to Telegram channels or piracy websites within hours of release. The response was largely reactive: DMCA takedowns, website blocking orders from courts, and industry lobbying.
The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 significantly strengthened the anti-piracy framework. The amendment inserted Section 6AA into the Cinematograph Act, 1952, specifically criminalising the unauthorised recording of films in cinema halls. Making, transmitting, or distributing any recording of a cinematograph film without authorisation even on a phone in a theatre now attracts imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of up to ₹10 lakh. This was a direct legislative response to the camcording piracy that had plagued theatrical releases.
OTT platform disputes, however, have introduced a more complex category of copyright litigation. The territorial licensing model where a producer separately licenses Hindi satellite rights, Tamil digital rights, Telugu OTT rights, international streaming rights has created a network of assignment agreements with varying scope, duration, and exclusivity. When OTT platforms began acquiring broader rights packages and aggressive release windows, disputes between producers and streaming platforms over the scope of licensed rights became routine.
The Madras High Court, Delhi High Court, and Bombay High Court have all handled disputes in the 2022–2025 period where producers and streaming platforms disagree over whether a particular exploitation falls within the licenced rights. The Bheemla Nayak dispute arising from the Malayalam original Ayyappanum Koshiyum illustrated a specific category: where two parties independently claim rights to produce Hindi versions of the same film, having received conflicting assignments from the original producer. The Delhi High Court’s ruling in that matter reinforced that assignment agreements must be meticulously drafted and that conflicting assignments of the same right cannot both be valid.
What obligations do OTT platforms carry as intermediaries?
Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2021, OTT platforms and online video hosting services operate as intermediaries. They are protected from liability for third-party content but only if they act expeditiously upon receiving actual knowledge of copyright infringement. The IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2021 require platforms to acknowledge IP complaints within 24 hours and resolve them within 15 days. Platforms that fail to comply with valid copyright takedown notices risk losing their safe harbour protection and becoming directly liable for infringing content they host.
Key Takeaway: The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 criminalised theatrical piracy with prison terms up to three years. OTT disputes now centre on assignment scope and territorial rights. Every streaming licence agreement for Indian content must specify platform, territory, duration, and exclusivity with precision ambiguity is litigated.
Dimension 3 — Remakes and Adaptations: When Does Homage Become Infringement?
What distinguishes an authorised remake from copyright infringement?
India’s multi-language film industry has made remake culture central to its commercial model. Tamil films remake Malayalam originals; Telugu films remake Tamil blockbusters; Hindi films remake both. This is legitimate commerce when properly licensed. Under Section 14(d)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957, making a film based upon another film or underlying work requires the copyright owner’s permission. An official remake licence must cover both the cinematograph film copyright (from the producer) and the underlying screenplay copyright (from the writer), unless both are owned by the same party.
The legal distinction between remakes and copyright infringement is the idea-expression line applied to cinematographic works. Remaking the theme, the genre, and the emotional arc of a film is lawful these are ideas. Reproducing specific scenes, exact dialogue, particular character dynamics, or distinctive musical compositions without a licence is infringement regardless of how different the language or cast may be.
In Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt Ltd v. Vipul Shah (Calcutta HC, 2008), the Court granted an injunction against the release of a Bengali film that reproduced specific scenes and content from Namastey London without a licence. The ruling confirmed that cultural and linguistic adaptation does not exempt a film from infringement liability when the specific expressive content of the original is reproduced.
The court in Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd v. Sri Sai Ganesh Productions examined what happens when scenes and songs are copied across language boundaries between the Hindi and Telugu industries and found clear infringement.
What about “inspired by” films and substantial similarity?
The phrase “inspired by” has no legal content in Indian copyright law. It does not create a defence. The relevant legal question is always whether the later work reproduces a substantial part of the original work’s expression. “Substantial” is assessed qualitatively even a small portion can be substantial if it is central to the original work’s creative identity.
The courts apply what is sometimes described as the “look and feel” test for audiovisual works: would an ordinary viewer, watching both films, form the impression that the later film has taken from the earlier? This test ensures that generic similarities of genre, setting, or character type are distinguished from copying of the original’s specific creative choices.
Key Takeaway: Official remakes require licences from both the film copyright owner and the screenplay copyright owner. “Inspired by” is not a legal defence. The idea-expression dichotomy permits genre homage but prohibits reproduction of specific expressive content the scenes, dialogue, and distinctive sequences that make the original work distinctive.
Dimension 4 — AI, Deepfakes, and Personality Rights: The 2024–2025 Revolution
How has AI changed copyright and personality rights for Indian film artists?
This is where Indian entertainment IP law has undergone its most dramatic transformation. Between 2022 and 2025, a cascade of High Court rulings primarily from Delhi and Bombay created a robust judicial framework for protecting celebrities’ identities against AI-generated exploitation, despite the absence of any dedicated statute on personality rights.
The foundational principle derives from the Supreme Court’s recognition in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (Auto Shankar case, 1994) that the right to control one’s own identity is part of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The subsequent recognition in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) that privacy is a fundamental right has given personality rights a constitutional anchor that the courts have consistently applied to entertainment disputes.
The Madras High Court established the template for Tamil cinema in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions a case concerning the unauthorised commercial use of actor Rajinikanth’s identity holding that once a person achieves celebrity status, any unlawful use of their persona is actionable, regardless of whether public confusion results. This principle has since been applied and extended across the entire Indian entertainment industry.
What did the 2024–2025 AI cases actually decide?
In Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP [IPR Suit (L) No.23443 of 2024, Bombay HC], the Court ruled in favour of the singer after AI tools were used to clone his voice for commercial products and digital content without authorisation. The Court held that Singh’s vocal style, vocal technique, vocal arrangements, interpretive mannerisms, and even his signature were all protectable facets of his personality rights. Critically, the Court found that using AI to recreate a performer’s voice, even without copying a specific recorded performance, violates both the performer’s exclusive right to commercially exploit their personality and their copyright in any performances being implicitly replicated. This decision is widely regarded as the most significant Indian ruling on AI voice cloning.
In Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors [CS(COMM) 389/2024, Delhi HC], the Court granted an injunction restraining defendants explicitly including social media platforms, e-commerce platforms, and AI applications from misappropriating the actor’s personality attributes. The order reached further than most: it restrained not just identified defendants but issued protections effective against the world at large through the “John Doe” / “Ashok Kumar” mechanism, making it automatically applicable to future infringers as they are identified.
In Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors (Delhi HC, September 2025), the Court ordered platforms and e-commerce sites to take down infringing content including AI-generated content and sexually explicit deepfakes, within 72 hours of the order. The Court stated in explicit terms that it would not “turn a blind eye” to the commercial exploitation of a celebrity’s likeness without consent.
By December 2025, courts in Delhi and Mumbai had issued similar emergency orders protecting NTR Jr., R. Madhavan, and Shilpa Shetty against AI-generated deepfakes and voice clones confirming that the judicial framework developed across these cases now applies uniformly across the Indian entertainment industry, regardless of whether the celebrity is from Bollywood, Tollywood, Tamil cinema, or any other industry.
The John Doe / Ashok Kumar order: This is the procedural innovation that has made personality rights enforcement effective in the digital age. When AI-generated content or deepfakes are created by unknown or rapidly multiplying defendants, the court can issue a “John Doe” order against unidentified defendants essentially a general injunction against the world that applies automatically as new infringers are identified. Originally developed for film piracy enforcement, this mechanism is now the primary tool for combating AI-driven personality misuse.
What is protected and what remains unresolved?
Indian courts have now confirmed that the following are protectable without specific legislation: a celebrity’s name, image, voice (including vocal style and technique), likeness, distinctive gestures, catchphrases, and AI-generated replicas of any of the above when used commercially without consent.
What remains unresolved: India does not yet have a dedicated Personality Rights Act equivalent to the US ELVIS Act or comparable legislation in other jurisdictions. The protection currently available rests entirely on judicial interpretation of Article 21 (privacy and dignity), the Copyright Act, 1957 (performer’s rights under Section 38, moral rights under Section 57), and the common law tort of passing off. This creates a gap: the remedies are powerful but depend on litigation, which is expensive and time-consuming even when the legal outcome is clear. Legislative codification of personality rights remains a critical pending reform.
Key Takeaway: AI voice cloning, deepfakes, and digital impersonation of Indian film celebrities are now clearly actionable under Indian law through personality rights, performer’s rights, and constitutional privacy protections. Courts are issuing 72-hour takedown orders and John Doe injunctions against the world. The absence of dedicated legislation creates enforcement gaps that legislative reform should address. IP Enforcement Services Unimarks Legal Solutions
Practical Roadmap: What Creators, Producers, and Performers Should Do Now
For film producers:
- Register copyright in your film, screenplay, and music with the Copyright Office (copyright.gov.in) before releasing. A ₹500 registration fee creates the evidentiary record that expedites enforcement.
- Draft all licensing agreements satellite, OTT, dubbed versions, remake rights with precise specification of territory, duration, platform, exclusivity, and sub-licensing rights.
- File for the Cinematograph Act’s anti-piracy protections proactively and brief your legal team on the 2023 Amendment’s provisions before theatrical release.
- Monitor OTT platforms, Telegram channels, and piracy websites through automated tools; have a legal protocol for filing takedown notices under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2021.
For performers and artists: 5. Register your performances as copyright works where possible; retain documentation of your original performances as evidence for any future personality rights claim. 6. If you discover AI-generated content using your voice, image, or likeness screenshot, preserve the URLs, and file a complaint with an IP lawyer before the content is taken down (preservation is evidence). 7. Seek urgent interim injunctions. The precedents from 2024–2025 mean courts will act quickly on clear personality rights violations.
For composers and lyricists: 8. The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 gives you an unassignable right to royalties from broadcast, OTT, and public performance of your compositions. Ensure your agreement with the producer reflects this, and register with IPRS to collect your share.
For everyone in the industry: 9. Understand that “inspired by” is not a legal category every creative decision about using elements from another work should be assessed against the idea-expression line. 10. Monitor developments in the proposed legislative framework for personality rights this area of law is moving faster in the courts than in Parliament, and legislative change will reshape the landscape when it arrives.
Conclusion: Indian Film Copyright in 2026 Five Years of Transformation
When Bigil raised its copyright questions in 2019, the answers were largely settled by provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 that had not changed in decades. By 2026, the Indian entertainment industry is navigating a legal landscape that five years ago did not exist: AI voice cloning is a tort against a performer’s personality rights; deepfake videos of celebrities attract 72-hour takedown orders; OTT piracy is a criminal offence under the Cinematograph Amendment Act; and courts are issuing injunctions against the world at large through John Doe orders that apply to future infringers as they emerge.
The Copyright Act, 1957 remains the foundation, but the courts have built significantly on it, and the questions arriving in 2026 are ones that the original drafters of that Act could not have imagined. For every filmmaker, composer, performer, writer, and producer working in Indian cinema today, understanding this landscape is not merely a legal formality. It is the difference between protecting what you have built and discovering that someone else or something else is profiting from it.
At Unimarks Legal Solutions, our IP team advises film producers, composers, lyricists, artists, and digital content creators across India on copyright registration, licensing, remake rights, performer’s rights, OTT dispute resolution, and the emerging personality rights framework in the age of AI. If the entertainment industry’s changing copyright landscape affects your work, contact us for a consultation.
Protect your creative work today → [INTERNAL LINK: Copyright Registration and Entertainment IP Unimarks Legal Solutions]
About the Author
Advocate Suresh Kumar has a law practice specialising in Intellectual Property Rights, Commercial legal advisory, debt recovery, commercial litigation, and dispute resolution for domestic and international clients. He is enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and represents clients before all courts and forums in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. This article reflects his understanding of the current legal position and is intended solely for informational purposes.
Disclaimer
This article is published by Unimarks Legal for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. The contents are based on Indian law as applicable at the time of writing and are subject to change. Readers should not act upon the information in this article without seeking independent legal counsel. Every legal situation is unique, and the application of law depends on specific facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. This publication is made in compliance with the Bar Council of India Rules, which prohibit advertising or solicitation by advocates. Any information received through this article should not be construed as legal advice.
For specific legal guidance on your matter, you may consult a qualified advocate in your jurisdiction.
