FAIR USE OF COPYRIGHT AND PREVENTING EXPLOITATION BY CORPORATE GIANTS.

INTRODUCTION

It has been contented that the copyright laws are made taking nod of the entertainment industry’s demands in mind. The copyright regulations were created to give producers, distributors, investors and other industry participants the legal framework they need to resolve conflicts and defend their rights. A good copyright policy is generally considered the one that encourages diverse art forms, fairly compensate the creators for their creations and contribution to art. However, the copyright laws at present, has largely failed to do so. The term copyright refers to “the exclusive right to publish and sell an original work of literature or art, as well as the right to print or reproduce copies of it.” This implies that the unique rights associated with the production can only be enjoyed by those who possess the copy ‘right.’ The only authority to sell, create, or reproduce that art form, as well as to profit and get royalties, belongs to the holder of the rights. This copyright holder isn’t always the creator of the artform, many a times the original creators being the music composer, writers etc, sell their composition, story, idea etc., to the big companies and these companies profit from these creations while the original creator merely gets anything in return. They are exploited and devoid of earning from their own ideas.

These Large Corporation are known to misuse the copyright laws by maintaining monopoly over the content. Before digital technology, it was more difficult to copy any form of media, such as books, music, etc., but now everyone can readily copy and distribute work. For organisations like the Recording Association of America, the Association of Publishers, and others that are concerned about losing money, this has put their conventional business models in jeopardy. But rather than adjusting, these businesses have responded by extending their authority over the medium through the use of more stringent copyright regulations in order to maintain a firm hold on it. Additionally, they have been successful in persuading people that even little, potentially harmless uses of copyrighted material, such as a review clip, are unlawful. In essence, these companies utilise copyright rules to increase control and profits sometimes even more than the law permits.

These massive corporations’ flagrant violations of copyright rules have seriously impeded the freedom of expression and the speech. With the advent of new art forms due to technology advancements, artists are now afraid about violating copyrights. Any portion of their work may be subject to copyright violation, which makes reviewers, critics, and parodies reluctant to publish their work. Additionally, these corporates have accumulated vital educational materials that researchers and professors cannot use or quote further for their own work; some cannot even obtain these materials without first paying the corporates! Critics of this control of resources and stringent copyright laws argue that ideas belong to everyone, one cannot own them, copyright is only there to protect the ‘expression’ of an idea. That ‘unfair use’ of an art form or medium should only be considered when it directly copies it instead of altering or replacing it with something new. The researcher in this research paper has examined the concepts of ‘fair use,’ ‘fair dealing,’ and other exceptions that can assist the public and creators better grasp their rights and speak out against the corporate giants’ misuse of power. The researcher has focused on the social implications and also the judicial point of view.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The research paper written by ‘Chelsea Sawlani’ titled, ‘Copyright, Culture and Contemporary Debates: A Jurisprudential Analysis of Fair Dealing in India’ sheds lights on the copyright system in India, determining the measures taken to protect the copyrighted work meanwhile also making sure that all these measures are just and fair, certain infringements are exempted. The author through this research paper has analysed the copyright laws in India from cultural and judicial point of view. The author has also harshly condemned the Indian judiciary for its inconsistent decisions, which have prevented India from ever establishing a culture that encourages innovation in research, commentary, and satire. The researcher through this research paper has referred to the doctrine of ‘fair dealing’ and its evolution.

The research paper written by ‘Pushpanjali Sood’ titled, ‘Fair Dealing in India: An Analysis vis-à-vis Fair Use in the United States’ compares the doctrine of ‘fair use’ in America and ‘fair dealing’ in India (borrowed from Britain) and highlights their scope and importance in the respective countries. The research paper discusses copyright limitations and exceptions as the author believes both these are the primary tools for maintaining a just balance between the conflicting interests of copyright owners and the general public. The researcher through this research paper has referred to these expectations and limitations only in order to understand the rights of the general public and to study the intricacies of fair dealings.

The research paper written by ‘Drew Clark’ titled, ‘How Copyright Became Controversial’ traces back the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), highlighting the copyright controversies, how it evolved from copyright violation to use of technological tools which violate copyright laws. It is stated that earlier companies wouldn’t even release their digital content until they were assured of digital locks, presence of strong laws in order to prevent piracy. The author in this research paper has gone on to explain how technology in copyright landscape has hampered liberty, companies are now even controlling things users buy. The researcher referred to this research paper to study the international scenario over the copyright law and the role of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in it.

The research paper written by ‘GJ Yonover’ titled, ‘The Precarious Balance, Moral Rights, Parody, and Fair Use’ emphasises the importance of striking a balance between personal and financial objectives in order to preserve the art that enhances life. According to the author, the existing regulations are out of date and should be updated to incorporate flexibility, artistic liberty, and social commentary in addition to artistic moral rights. In his study, the author also made reference to the famous case of ‘Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.’ The researcher found this study to be very helpful in examining the nature of moral rights and copyrighted works.

The research paper titled, ‘What is fair use?’ by ‘LR Yankwich’ dives deep into the American Copyright laws and ‘permissibility’ of the copyright work. According to the author, for a long time, writers in the political, social, scientific, and other fields of thought were frightened into believing that it was dangerous to utilise other people’s copyrighted works in the same field without their permission. Due to this, reasonable access to these materials is still discouraged and that barriers are put in the way of scholars and writers working in these domains. denying possession of ideas, whether they are protected by copyright, is not based on any argument of “fair use.” Instead, it is based on the long-held belief that concepts belong to all people and that an author only has the right to the way he expresses or embodies them, regardless of whether the content is copyrighted or not. The researcher has referred to this research paper to examine the public rights and conditions to determine fair use.

‘God in the Machine: A New Structural Analysis of Copyright’s Fair Use Doctrine’ written by ‘Matthew Sag’ examines the role of ‘fair use’ within the copyright arena. The author stated that fair use is often misunderstood. The fundamental issue facing fair use law is that, without its flexibility, copyright would become burdensome and oppressive; but, if fair use permits excessive flexibility from copyright, it runs the risk of weakening the incentives that authors of works protected by copyright depend on. To clarify things, the author has specified two structural goals that fair use embodies: defining the shifting balance of copyright law and determining the ability to create policies about copyright law. The researcher examined this research paper to study the purpose and limitations of fair use.

‘Google news and public policy’s influence on fair use in online infringement controversies’ written by ‘RF Reynolds’ focusses on the legal controversy surrounding Google News and its use of headlines and news extracts to examine the complexities of copyright law, fair use, and public policy in the digital era. The author has divided this research paper into three areas, to firstly give us a brief overview of copyright, then to explain fair use doctrine and lastly to examine how overemphasizing public policy arguments in fair use cases can exploit the flexibility of the doctrine, making it harder to define clear legal boundaries. The researcher referred to this paper to understand the clash over content ownership and distribution rights.

‘The Moral and Economic Value of Intellectual Property Rights in The Virtual Worlds’ written by ‘Eisha Vashishtha’ explores the fair use of copyright and further examines the exploitation by large corporations of the copyright laws which results in suppressing creativity, criticism and access to knowledge. The author has given example of YouTube taking down reviews unjustifiably and has also explained the exception to copyright doctrines. The researcher examined this research paper to refer to the policy reforms and legal solutions which can help prevent the blatant corporate abuse of laws.

‘Towards a fair use standard’ written by ‘Pierre N. Leval’ examines the confusion and conflicts underlying the copyright’s fair use doctrine. It emphasises how judges have traditionally relied more on their intuition than on dependable legal concepts when deciding what constitutes fair usage because they lack a defined framework for doing so. The study explores the history of fair use, from its initial acceptance as “fair abridgement” following the Statute of Anne (1709) to its final adoption in the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act. Even after all this time, courts have had difficulty defining fair use consistently, which has resulted in reversals, conflicting views, and ambiguity for publishers, authors, and legal experts.

‘Fair Use or Fair Game? The Internet, MP3 and Copyright Law’ written by ‘KJ Hoffman’ aims to explore and clarify the evolving relationship between recorded music and other types of digital regulation and copyright law. This paper also aims to clarify the issues where rightsholders have faced in addressing the problem of unauthorised copyright infringement made possible by electronic devices. The researcher has referred to this paper study the impact of digital space on creative endeavours.

The article, ‘In Serving Big Company Interests, Copyright Is in Crisis’, written by ‘Cory Doctorow’ criticises giant corporates over their blatant misuse of the copyright laws. How through forceful measures, they supress the voice of the independent creators, make way for unfair practice and restrains the consumers to subscribe to their facilities only. The researcher has cited this article to examine how the monopoly game harms artists and the general public while also adding to the wealth of big corporates.

The article, ‘The brilliant life and tragic death of Aaron Swartz’ written by ‘David Amsden’ sheds life and tragic death of internet pioneer and activist who campaigned for availability of free educational resources. Known as ‘Internet’s own boy’ lovingly, Aaron Swartz was charged for hacking into MIT servers and stealing millions of files from online library of academic journal. No one was aware that for such a thing, a heavy punishment would be imposed. Aaron Swartz has inspired millions of people, researchers who too are campaigning for availability of free educational resources.

‘Reclaiming fair use: How to put balance back in copyright’ written by ‘P Aufderheide and P Jaszi’ helps one to indicate their way through the copyright laws. It aims to guide the general public on how to use copyrighted works and incorporate them into their creative endeavours without needing the original author’s consent. The argument surrounding copyright issues is also reframed in the book, which also reassesses the function of copyright in promoting upcoming artists. This book has proven to be very vital for the researcher from research point of view as the book addresses the war between the mass-media corporations, sitting over, strictly controlling their work, therefore advocating for stricter copyright laws vs those artists who want to create new art by using the past work as well, that art should be free to use for everyone. The authors for this book have done extensive groundwork research and has spent time with filmmakers, professors, librarians, historians, dancers etc. to understand how the availability of free resources are useful for them.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following are the Research Questions related to the study-

• How giant corporations exploit the copyright law?
• How do the copyright laws restrict education?
• What are the essential differences between the US and Indian Copyright laws?
• How does the doctrine of ‘fair use’ varies from ‘fair dealing’?
• How can one use the copyrighted work in their creation by fair measures?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The followings are the research objectives of the study-

• The following research paper aims to study how corporates exploit the copyright law and use it in their favour, suppressing independent creators.
• It aims to assess the flaws in automated copyright enforcement mechanisms and their consequences for fair use.
• It aims to throw limelight at landmark cases pertaining to fair use of the copyright law.
• It aims to analyse how a balance can be made between economical and moral rights.

STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM

The study examines the exceptions to inculcating copyrighted work in one’s work without the permission of the copyright holder, i.e., the ‘fair use’, ‘fair dealing’ doctrines, Article 19(1)(a) etc. Giant corporate firm etc, often misuse the copyright laws to prevent even acceptable use of creative work. They often misuse the legal loopholes to stifle fair use, despite the fact that fair use is intended to safeguard creativity, education, and debate. The goal of the study is to investigate how copyright laws can be used in a way to shield original creators and general people from exploitation like this.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

It has become increasingly challenging to discern what is and is not protected by copyright in a time when technological developments have given rise to new artistic forms such as remixes, memes, parodies, etc. The copyright holders frequently abuse their authority, despite the assertions of proponents of free speech and expression that all these new artistic mediums are merely enjoyable ways to better promote art. They file a lawsuit against the other creator under the copyright acts if they believe the new creative form is mocking their creation. The freedom of speech and expression is further hampered by this behaviour, which is also seen while providing reviews and criticism. Some original creators/holders frequently abuse their power in order to profit. For instance, larger YouTubers or film production companies have been known to strike down videos from smaller YouTubers after they review their work. This research paper aims to better comprehend the fine boundary between private and public rights and how artists, academics, reviewers, and others might better enjoy their moral and creative rights without violating copyright rules.

SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

Scope: This study through the doctrines of ‘fair use’ and ‘fair dealings’ and other exceptions to copyright, analyse how common people might make use of famous artistic work in their own work without violating any copyright law. This creative freedom further benefits the original creator also as it better promotes their art, even if a critique is there, the original artistic can take it in a constructive way instead of misusing their power to ridicule the critic. The researcher also advocates for free and open educational resources since knowledge should be free and should not be restricted to limited few people.

Limitation: There is confusion since it is hard to determine what is and is not acceptable due to differing opinions regarding the application of these doctrines. Countries have varying copyright laws, and there are no standardised rules. As a result, the primary focus of this research study is mainly on the copyright laws in the USA and India.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Doctrinal and non-doctrinal procedures are the two primary categories of research approaches. In contrast to doctrinal research, which primarily emphasises upon conducting research by studying the available material, non-doctrinal research necessitates the researcher conducting fieldwork. In order to investigate the pertinent copyright law and the ‘fair use’ and ‘fair dealing’ doctrine, which can support the creation of artistic and social liberty, the researcher used doctrinal research methodology in this research paper. She did this by using secondary data from a variety of articles, case laws and law journals.

SOURCES OF DATA

In order to have a more comprehensive and objective viewpoint on this research issue, the researcher relied on secondary data for the current study. To finish this study, the researcher referred to various internet articles, international conventions and publications written by well-known authors and academics. Additionally, the researcher examined the landmark cases as well supporting the contention of open and free resources.

BATTLE OF OWNERSHIP

More than a decade ago, Aaron Swartz, an entrepreneur (co-founder of Reddit), computer programmer, internet activist, committed a daring act of civil disobedience in support of free and open access to information. Swartz thought that everyone should have unrestricted access to academic material, which is frequently concealed behind paywalls of for-profit databases. Based on this belief, he entered the MIT network and downloaded thousands of scholarly articles in bulk from a database that was prohibited. For Swartz, this was a moral obligation rather than a theft. He felt that individuals who were locked out should be given access to the enormous amount of knowledge that was available to them. According to him, sharing was not immoral but a moral duty. He urged other researchers as well to take action.

Swartz however, ended up paying a heavy price for his act. He was imprisoned and charged in 2011 for illegally accessing JSTOR via MIT’s network in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The U.S. government filed felony charges against him, threatening to penalise him $1 million and imprison him for up to 35 years. Prosecutors persisted vigorously, citing antiquated hacking laws to make fun of JSTOR even though he refused to file charges. The prosecution was strongly denounced by legal professionals and campaigners as being unfair and unreasonable. Many perceived it as an effort to strengthen corporate control over scholarly information and frighten advocates for digital rights. This bold act of Swartz has since inspired many. The corporate world however, still continue to remain a giant bully.

Another famous case enthralling freedom of resources is that of Napster. Shawn Fanning founded the peer-to-peer music-sharing website Napster in 1999, which came under scrutiny for copyright violations. After their unreleased song ‘I Disappear’ leaked and was aired on the radio, ‘Metallica’ filed a lawsuit against Napster. Fans reacted negatively when the band, lead by Lars Ulrich, claimed that Napster encouraged infringement. Despite the court’s decision, Napster was unable to restrict copyrighted music. The ongoing conflict between the music industry and digital piracy began when Napster shut down in 2001, reached a settlement with Metallica, and declared bankruptcy in 2002.

By granting them exclusive rights over their creations, copyright was designed to support artists and enable them to make money and take on bigger companies. In actuality, though, large firms build up copyrights in all sectors of the economy that use software, not simply the entertainment sector. It is practically difficult for independent creators to thrive without selling their rights to large multinationals, who control the market with their enormous copyright portfolios. Copyright has evolved into a tool for corporate domination rather than empowering creators, compelling lesser players to sell their work to industry titans before they can achieve any recognition. Take example of a giant like Tseries only which force artists to sell their royalties. Tseries is also infamously known as the youtuber which strikes down other YouTube creators for using their songs in the background. This measure is not observed as a way to protect artist’s interest but is infact a way to bully these small YouTube channels.

Big stars like Taylor Swift as well has to suffer over ownership over their own music, independent artists however, have to suffer more. They rely on a free and open internet to share their work, attract audiences, and make a living without the support of corporations. But as the dominance of Big Tech firms grows, these creators are left vulnerable to platform practices that might demonetise their work, remove their content, or wrongly accuse them of copyright violations, all without providing them with reasonable redress.

One excellent illustration of how corporate influence is changing the creative sectors is Amazon’s Audible business. Although audiobooks have grown to be a significant source of income for writers, Amazon controls the industry and forces publishers and producers to abide by its rules. Amazon’s exclusive Digital Rights Management (DRM), which limits book access and sharing, must be used by all audiobooks offered on Audible.

Copyright, once called “the author’s monopoly,” but today, it is controlled by a handful of corporate giants in tech and entertainment. Companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft hold the power to decide which web browsers are allowed to compete, while publishers and movie studios use copyright as a weapon to suppress competition. Even outside entertainment, copyright laws are being weaponized to kill the independent repair industry. Corporations have lobbied against Right to Repair laws, arguing that fixing your own devices violates their intellectual property rights. This ensures that only the manufacturers can repair your phone, car, or appliances, keeping consumers dependent on expensive, restrictive repair services. Greater reforms are needed to be introduced, more and more people should also raise their voice against this injustice and campaign for free and open internet and resources, artists having autonomy over their work.

‘FAIR USE’, ‘FAIR DEALING’ AND OTHER EXCEPTIONS TO UNDERSTAND ONE’S RIGHTS

In order to take a stand against the misuse of the copyright laws, one needs to be first informed about their rights. The concepts of fair use and fair dealing are both crucial elements of copyright law. They allow for the reproduction of copyrighted material that would otherwise be regarded as infringement. These two principles allow for the reasonable use of a work without requiring the copyright holder’s permission. The doctrine of ‘fair use’ is derived from the American law and is covered under section 107 of the US Copyright Act. The four-factor test is used to decide if a work qualifies as ‘fair use.’ It states that the following factors should be taken into account: a) the use’s purpose and character; b) the nature of the work; c) the amount or substantiality of the section used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and d) the use’s impact on the work’s potential market or value. Both quantitative and qualitative considerations influence these characteristics. ‘Fair use’ is often applicable in satires, parodies, commentaries, revies, general borrowing of ideas etc., The doctrine of fair use is much wider than doctrine of fair dealing.

‘Fair dealing’ is not defined under the Indian Copyright Act of 1957. Section 52(1)(a) states that “a fair dealing with any work, not being a computer program, for private or personal use, including research, criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work, the reporting of current events including the reporting of a lecture delivered in public shall not constitute an infringement of copyright”. Unlike fair use, there are no tests to determine the applicability of fair dealing and there is only an exhaustive list provided for acts which would not come under infringement, anything beyond that would count as infringement. This makes the scope of fair dealing much more narrow and rigid than the former and leaving most of it upon the Indian judiciary to determine. The Indian Copyright Act is tilted more towards the authors rather than maintaining a balance between author’s economical rights and public rights. While the fair dealing doctrine can help one to protect from copyright infringement, however, the fate of deciding whether the act falls under ‘fair dealing’ category or not is left with judiciary only and the identification process remains unclear.

There also exists the ‘De minimis’ rule which is another exception to the copyright law. To simply putting it together, it helps a person to get protected from getting a copyright strike if they have used any work like a footage, song recording etc., without permission but only a small insignificant portion of it which is not likely to cause any kind of damage to the copyright holder. The de minimis rule has been acknowledged by Indian courts as a legitimate defence against allegations of copyright infringement in recent years. The case of India TV ‘Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd.’ is a noteworthy illustration. In this case, Yashraj Films sued India TV in two different cases: one for using a line from a popular Hindi song in an advertisement and another for showing a show where singer Vasundhara Das sang short snippets of nine well-known songs. The court took into account five important elements while assessing the de minimis principle :

• The extent and type of the damage
• The expense and work involved in legal procedures
• The reason why the legal restriction was broken
• The impact on other parties of the purported infringement
• The intention of the defendant in the infringement case

The court held that the harm was insignificant and did not amount to copyright infringement after considering these criteria. The de minimis principle is a commonly accepted defence in copyright and trademark lawsuits in the United States. When the pirated content is deemed too little, American courts sometimes dismiss cases without even using fair use doctrine. One well-known instance is ‘Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp.,’ in which a photographer filed a lawsuit against the film’s producers for exploiting multiple of his copyrighted images. According to the de minimis rule, the court determined that there had been no copyright infringement because the images were indistinct, unrecognisable, and only displayed momentarily.

However, the court in ‘Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc.,’ ruled out the de minimis rule stating that a copyrighted poster in the background of the TV show Roc for 27 seconds was not de minimis as unlike the Seven case, the poster in Roc was clearly visible, detailed, and easily recognizable to the average viewer. As a result, the court held that this use was significant enough to warrant copyright protection. This contrast highlights that there is no fixed rule for determining what qualifies as de minimis use. While the United States has long accepted the de minimis rule in copyright cases, India has only recently started applying it. With more copyright disputes emerging in Indian courts, the de minimis rule is gradually gaining recognition as a legitimate legal argument.

Additionally, there is the universally guaranteed, “freedom of speech and expression,” which is the cornerstone of both the American and Indian constitutions. The Indian Constitution’s Article 19(1)(a) and the United States Constitution’s first amendment both provide this fundamental right, which allows people to freely criticise, review, parody etc. As stated by the Delhi High Court in the 1995 case of ‘Wiley Eastern Ltd. vs. Indian Institute of Management,’ “The basic purpose of section 52 of the Copyright Act is to protect the freedom of expression under Article 19(1) of the Constitution so that research, private study, criticism, review, or reporting of current events could be protected.”

STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN HOLDER’S ECONOMICAL AND USER’S MORAL RIGHTS

Copyright laws in the digital age must carefully balance safeguarding the public’s freedom to access knowledge and culture with defending the financial rights of producers. The initial purpose of copyright laws was to compensate artists by granting them the only right to their creations, enabling them to make money off of their intellectual property. However, with time, over-commercialization has resulted in limitations on artistic expression, creating monopolistic control by big businesses, and obstacles in education. This further results in limiting the diverse options of services which a company can provide, therefore having it’s own users devoid of things. A prime example of it is of Amazon Prime itself which, despite charging subscription fee, has made several of it’s movie made available on rent making users pay extra. Corporations utilise paywalls and exorbitant licensing costs to keep researchers, educators, and students from accessing important academic resources. Big businesses also amass copyright ownership, which prohibits independent artists from practicing fair use or freely utilising their own creations. Not only that, these corporates also do not have any space for any kind of criticism or satire over their content as they feel attacked.

To tackle these issues, copyright regulations have established worldwide restrictions and standards that permit the use of copyrighted content under particular circumstances without obtaining consent. These include making sure copyrighted works that serve the public interest, like news and historical records, remain accessible, enabling artists to expand upon existing works through critique and recontextualization, and permitting students and researchers to use copyrighted materials without encountering legal obstacles. The issue of unclear rules and fair use, however, still persists and has resulted in misunderstandings, legal issues, and uneven copyright enforcement. Broad exclusions, according to some, might lower the economic worth of copyrighted works and deter authors from creating new content.

The historic ruling in the ‘Rameshwari Photocopy Shop Case’ emphasises the conflict between public access and economic rights. In one instance, a small copier business close to Delhi University was sued by large academic publishers for copying course materials for students. The Delhi High Court upheld the right to education, ruling that, in accordance with Section 52(1)(i) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, making copies of textbooks for academic use constitutes fair dealing. This decision established a progressive precedent for striking a balance between the public interest and intellectual property protection by emphasising that copyright regulations shouldn’t prevent students from accessing necessary educational resources. Major publishers, on the other hand, saw this ruling as a danger to their financial interests since they were concerned that such exceptions would reduce their earnings and deter funding for scholarly publishing.

The emergence of digital platforms has made copyright enforcement even more challenging. Unmatched access to creative works is made possible by the internet, but it also makes it easier for illegal replication and distribution to occur. As a result, copyright enforcement tools like YouTube’s Content ID and the US’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) have become more prevalent. Despite the fact that these methods were created to safeguard copyright holders, they are frequently abused to censor material, particularly by powerful corporations. The main problems with automated copyright enforcement include corporate control over content, unfair takedowns, and restricted options for independent authors.

The realities of the digital age must be reflected in copyright rules in order to strike a just balance between moral and economic rights. Reforms are required, such as revising fair use criteria, which can contribute to the establishment of more precise legal safeguards for research, education, and transformative works. It is necessary to regulate corporate copyright monopolies in order to stop big businesses from unfairly limiting access and hoarding intellectual property. increasing the openness of copyright enforcement to guarantee the accuracy and fairness of automated systems such as Content ID and DMCA takedowns. Internet activists like Aaron Swartz have battled for public access to academic papers, historical documents, and cultural works; open-access initiatives are also necessary to advance this goal. Lastly, there should be an environment for fostering ongoing discussions pertaining to policies which focuses on evaluating and updating copyright laws to keep pace with the technological advancements.

CONCLUSION

It is important to understand that both economical benefits to a creator and the autonomy to freedom of speech and expression, both are important and they can co-exist. A direct copy of source material is an unfair use and infringes the copyright law however, altering it, getting inspiration from it and merely using it as an idea further promotes and encourages art. There should not be any unnecessary hindrance over that by means of strikes, legal suits etc. It should ultimately be up to us as users to improve the scenario by refusing to use platforms that engage in these unfair practices, as the major corporations will continue to abuse copyright rules because it greatly profits them. Another thing that we consumers can do is to support independent artists. Outrage, whether vocal or on social media, has been proven to be effective in getting big corporations to stop their unfair actions. Supporting independent artists can increase their prominence and, eventually, get the corporate enterprises to sign fair terms with them.

LIST OF CASES

1. Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2013 (NOC) 315 (DEL.)
2. Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp, 973 F. Supp. 409 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
3. Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc, 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997)
4. Wiley Eastern Ltd. vs. Indian Institute of Management, (1995) SCC OnLine Del 784
5. The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars Of ... vs Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Anr., RFA(OS) 81/2016

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Cory Doctorow, In Serving Big Company Interests, Copyright Is in Crisis, EFF (Jan 21, 2020), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/01/serving-big-company-interests-copyright-crisis
2. LR Yankwich, What is fair use?, 22 TUCLR, 203 (1954)
3. P Aufderheide, P Jaszi, Reclaiming fair use: How to put balance back in copyright 6 (The University of Chicago Press Ltd., 2011)
4. Chelsea Sawlani, Copyright, Culture and Contemporary Debates: A Jurisprudential Analysis of Fair Dealing in India, 28 JIPR 200, (2023)
5. Pushpanjali Sood, Fair Dealing in India: An Analysis vis-à-vis Fair Use in the United States, 28 JIPR, 560, 561, 565 (2024)
6. Drew Clark, How Copyright Became Controversial, NJTD, 1
7. GJ Yonover, The Precarious Balance, Moral Rights, Parody, and Fair Use, 14 CAE, 80 (1996)
8. Matthew Sag, God in the Machine: A New Structural Analysis of Copyright's Fair Use Doctrine, 11 MTTLR, 382 (2005)
9. RF Reynolds, Google news and public policy's influence on fair use in online infringement controversies, 25 JCRED, 974 (2011)
10. Eisha Vashishtha, The Moral and Economic Value of Intellectual Property Rights in The Virtual Worlds, 1 NLUA, 14
11. Pierre N. Leval, Towards a fair use standard, 103 HLR, 1106 (1990)
12. Cory Doctorow, In Serving Big Company Interests, Copyright Is in Crisis, 11 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech., 155 (2000-2001)
13. David Amsden, The brilliant life and tragic death of Aaron Swartz, RS (Feb 15, 2013), https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/the-brilliant-life-and-tragic-death-of-aaron-swartz-177191/
14. Alex Fewtrell, Classic Copyright Cases – Napster, BRIFFA (Jan 27, 2021), https://www.briffa.com/blog/classic-copyright-cases-napster/
15. 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2021)
16. The Copyright Act, 1957, § 52(1)(a) (India)
17. Suhasini, Balancing Commercial Rights, Limitations and Exceptions in a Sustainable Copyright Ecosystem, 1 IPRJMNLU 84-87 (Balancing Commercial Rights, Limitations and Exceptions)