YouTube takedown and copyright strike lawyers

Yes. Under Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 a suit for infringement is filed in the district court having jurisdiction, which includes the district where the copyright owner actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain on the date of filing. A rights owner in Chennai can therefore sue here even when the uploader is elsewhere. Copyright is a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and such cases are tried by the Commercial Division or a Commercial Court above the specified value.

No application is needed for copyright to exist. It subsists in original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recordings under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the author is the first owner under Section 17. Section 45 provides only that the author, publisher or owner may apply to the Registrar of Copyrights to enter particulars of the work in the Register of Copyrights.

Under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 the author of a work is its first owner, but where a cinematograph film is made for valuable consideration at another person's instance, that person is the first owner unless there is an agreement to the contrary. Work made in the course of employment belongs to the employer on the same condition. The terms signed before production therefore decide most disputes of this kind.

A rights owner can file YouTube's copyright removal request and a complaint to the platform's grievance officer, and a creator can counter notify or ask the claimant to retract. The IT Rules, 2021 require the platform's user agreement to bar content that belongs to another person without a right and content that infringes copyright, under Rule 3(1)(b)(i) and (iv). A person unhappy with the grievance officer's decision can appeal to the Grievance Appellate Committee within thirty days under Rule 3A(3).

Generally the platform is treated as an intermediary, and Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 gives it a safe harbour. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that the platform loses this protection only if it fails to take down material after actual knowledge through a court order or a government notification. Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visakha Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162, concerned the older Section 79 in force before 2009, and there the Court declined to quash a defamation complaint against Google. Blocking under Section 69A is a separate government power, distinct from takedown under Section 79.

Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows fair dealing with a work, other than a computer programme, for private or personal use including research, for criticism or review of that or any other work, and for the reporting of current events and current affairs. Storing the work in an electronic medium for those purposes is also outside infringement. Only a fair dealing for one of those purposes is covered.

Under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 the owner gets all remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise, and the costs of the proceedings are in the court's discretion. Infringement committed knowingly is also an offence under Section 63, punishable with imprisonment of not less than six months, which may extend to three years, and a fine of not less than fifty thousand rupees, which may extend to two lakh rupees. Where the infringement was not for gain in trade or business, the court may impose less for reasons recorded in the judgment.

A suit for compensation for infringing copyright has to be filed within three years of the date of the infringement, under the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. A suit filed after that period is dismissed even if the other side does not plead limitation, under Section 3 of that Act. The period runs from the date of the infringement.