How Do Indian Courts Handle Copyright Claims for User-Generated Content on Platforms?

Introduction:

First of all, what is user-generated content (UGC)? As the name suggests, it's content created by someone else talking about your brand or related somehow to it.

While the UGC content may or may not tag your brand, a smart social media manager keeps an eye out for content that could be useful, whether it's tagged or not.

According to a 2024 Consumer Research report, 40% of shoppers say that UGC is ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ important when making a purchase decision. That’s more than product comparison charts (39%) or product videos (37%).

The type of UGC content can be in any format, such as a video, image, testimonial, blog, live stream, review, or even a podcast.

A copyright claim is an assertion of ownership over content that appears on a platform like YouTube, typically when copyrighted material is used without permission. Unlike a copyright strike, which leads to a video's removal and can result in penalties for the uploader's account, a claim usually allows the content to remain visible but redirects any monetization to the copyright owner.

The Legal Framework for UGC Copyright Issues in India:

When users upload reels, edits, covers, or memes, copyright disputes can arise. Indian courts rely on three key laws to decide who’s liable—the user, the platform, or both.

1. Copyright Act, 1957

This is the main law protecting creators.
Uploading someone else’s work without permission amounts to infringement.
However, UGC is allowed if it falls under fair dealing—like reviews, commentary, parody, news reporting, or educational use. Courts first check: did the content owner’s rights get violated?

2. IT Act, 2000 (Section 79 – Safe Harbour)

Platforms like YouTube or Instagram are considered intermediaries.
They are not liable for what users upload if they act neutrally and follow due diligence.
They must remove illegal content only after actual knowledge, meaning a court order or government direction.
If a platform actively promotes or modifies content, it can lose its safe harbour protection.

3. Intermediary Rules 2021

These rules tighten compliance for social media platforms.
They require platforms to:

• Publish terms banning infringement

• Set up grievance mechanisms

• Appoint compliance officers (for large platforms)

• Act quickly on court/government takedown orders

Failure to follow these rules = loss of safe harbor.

Courts look at who uploaded the content, how the platform responded, and whether the platform followed the rules. These three laws together shape how India handles UGC copyright disputes.

How Indian Courts Decide Platform Liability in UGC Copyright Cases:

When a copyright dispute arises over user-generated content, Indian courts focus on one core issue: Is the platform just a neutral host, or did it actively help the infringement?

Courts use three key principles to decide.

1. Intermediary vs. Publisher

Platforms get protection only if they are intermediaries—meaning they don’t select, edit, promote, or modify content.
If the platform behaves like a publisher (curating or pushing content), it can be held liable just like the user.

2. The “Actual Knowledge” Rule

As clarified in Shreya Singhal, platforms must remove infringing content only when they receive:

• a court order, or

• a government notice.
  General complaints or “you should know this is illegal” are not enough.
  If they ignore valid legal notices, safe harbour is lost.

3. Due Diligence Requirements

Courts check whether the platform followed all legal duties:

• Clear anti-infringement terms of service

• A proper grievance officer

• Quick action after legal notice

• Transparent takedown process

If the platform is careless or slow to act, courts may hold it responsible.

Indian courts protect platforms that act neutrally and respond quickly to legal orders. But if a platform becomes too involved in content or ignores takedown obligations, it risks losing safe harbor and being held liable.

Case Laws:

1. MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (Delhi HC)

Held that intermediaries are not required to proactively monitor UGC and retain safe harbor if they act on specific takedown notices.

2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (SC)

Established that platforms have a duty to remove content only after receiving “actual knowledge” through a court or government order.

3. Google India v. Visaka Industries Ltd. (SC)

Clarified that intermediaries lose safe harbor if they actively participate in publishing or curating illegal content.

4. Kent RO Systems v. Amit Kotak (Delhi HC)

Stated that intermediaries must expeditiously remove infringing content once they receive a valid court order.

Indian courts:

Indian courts handle copyright claims involving user-generated content by first checking whether the user has uploaded someone else’s protected work and then examining the platform’s role—whether it acted as a neutral intermediary or played an active part in promoting, modifying, or curating the content. Courts apply the Shreya Singhal “actual knowledge” rule, meaning platforms must act only when given a valid court or government takedown order, not on vague complaints. If the platform follows due diligence, responds quickly to legal notices, and stays neutral, it keeps its safe harbor protection under Section 79 of the IT Act. But if it ignores takedown orders or becomes too involved in the content, courts can hold the platform liable alongside the user.

Conclusion:

Indian courts thus balance the equities between protection of the rights of copyright owners and ensuring the free flow of UGC on online intermediaries. Relying on the Copyright Act and the safe-harbor framework of the IT Act, supported by the Intermediary Rules, courts ensure that no genuine creator is harmed while ensuring that platforms are not saddled for every user upload. The judiciary consistently protects those intermediaries who act neutrally and comply with takedown orders while holding those guilty who actively facilitate infringement. As UGC will increase, be it through reels, edits, AI content, or livestreams, courts will continue to refine this balance and shape a more responsible and creator-friendly digital ecosystem in India.