Law / India

Copyright Act, No Text-and-Data-Mining Exception, Database Compilations, and Technological Protection Measures

Copyright Act, 1957 (No. 14 of 1957), ss. 2(o), 51, 52, 63, 65A

In force since .

A copyright and text and data mining (TDM) rule binding public and private bodies.

Audit expectation
none

What it requires

  • Get the rights holder's authorisation before reproducing or reusing copyrighted material, including a copyrighted database or compilation, to train an AI model; the fair-dealing exceptions do not name text-and-data-mining or AI training as a covered purpose.
  • Do not circumvent an effective technological protection measure applied to a work with the intention of infringing a right the Act confers.

These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.

In the frameworks

NIST AI RMF
  • MAP 4.1Approaches for mapping AI technology and legal risks of its components – including the use of third-party data or software – are in place, followed, and documented, as are risks of infringement of a third party’s intellectual property or other rights.

Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law

If you get it wrong

Criminal exposureYes

Criminal exposure note

Knowing infringement under section 63 carries imprisonment of not less than six months and up to three years, and a fine of not less than fifty thousand rupees and up to two lakh rupees; circumventing a technological protection measure under section 65A separately carries imprisonment of up to two years and a fine.

Penalty structure

Section 63's penalty for knowing infringement. Section 65A's separate technological-protection-measure offence carries up to two years' imprisonment and a fine of an unspecified amount on the face of the section.

Rule
Fixed only
As of
Minimum
50,000
Currency
INR
Fixed cap
200,000

What it makes you log

What the log must hold

Actor identity

Logging duty

The duty sits in the proviso to the exception for circumventing a technological measure for a purpose the Act does not prohibit. It reaches the facilitator, not an ordinary user or scraper. The text states no retention period, no person who may demand the record and no audit. Sections 2(o), 51, 52 and 63, also cited by this row, impose no record duty.

Kind
Explicit
As of
Provision
Section 65A(2)(a) proviso: any person facilitating circumvention by another person of a technological measure, for a purpose the Act does not expressly prohibit, must maintain a complete record of that other person, including name, address and all relevant particulars necessary to identify him and the purpose for which he has been facilitated.

What this law does

Drafted with AI

Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page. How this site is made

Research summary

Legal information, not legal advice. This is LexLint's own research summary of a public legal source, and it creates no attorney-client relationship. For decisions that matter, consult qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. About LexLint

Section 2(o) defines a literary work to include computer programmes, tables and compilations including computer databases, so a database or compilation is protected only as an ordinary literary work rather than under a separate sui generis database right, which the Act does not create.

Section 51 makes any unlicensed exercise of the copyright owner's exclusive rights an infringement, and section 63 punishes a knowing infringement with imprisonment of not less than six months and up to three years, and a fine of not less than fifty thousand rupees and up to two lakh rupees.

Section 52(1)(a) confines fair dealing, for any work other than a computer programme, to private or personal use including research, criticism or review, and the reporting of current events and current affairs, and names no exception for text-and-data-mining or AI-model training.

Section 65A separately makes it an offence, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment and a fine, to circumvent an effective technological protection measure with the intention of infringing a right the Act confers, subject to listed exceptions including encryption research and authorised security testing. The Act has applied since its own commencement, , per notification under section 1(3).

When LexLint raises it

When your app profile says your app crawls the web or trains models.

Back to the example  ·  Lint your app

Page updated .