AUTHOR : DEBKRIPA BURMAN
The widespread practice of sharing short videos, speeches, music, writings, and other creative works on social media and messaging platforms has become a common form of digital entertainment. These materials are often forwarded unchanged or with modifications, with little regard for copyright ownership. Few users consider whether such sharing constitutes "fair use" or a potential copyright violation.
Section 51 of the Copyright Act specifies that any action infringing the exclusive rights granted to a copyright owner without their license constitutes copyright infringement. Therefore, sharing video clips, sound recordings, or performance images without authorization violates the owner's copyright.
Section 52 of the Copyright Act outlines activities that do not constitute infringement, including fair use for purposes such as private study, criticism, reporting current events, public recitations of published works, or performances by amateur groups for non-paying audiences or religious institutions. However, these provisions do not explicitly address the use of copyrighted materials in social media chats or conversations. Given the broad and diverse nature of most social media groups, which often extend beyond private or closed settings as defined in Section 52(l), such usage may generally be considered “public use”. This raises the question of whether sharing copyrighted material on these platforms constitutes infringement.
Law has traditionally evolved around principles of equity and fairness, often guided by established legal maxims such as de minimis non curat lex, meaning the law does not concern itself with trifles. This principle allows courts to avoid rigidly applying statutes to minor infractions with negligible public impact. Globally, this maxim has been invoked to address minor copyright infringements which are deemed inconsequential.
Courts globally have applied the de minimis doctrine in copyright cases in three ways: when only a small portion of a work is copied, when no substantial similarity exists (and thus no infringement), and as a defense for minor infringements. On Davis v. Gap Inc.[1] , the U.S. Circuit Court observed that modern life involves trivial copying, such as photocopying letters, photographing public sculptures, or recording TV programs, which, without the de
minimis doctrine, could technically violate copyright laws. This principle ensures that minor copying is not treated as a legal violation, as such actions are unlikely to harm rights holders or lead to litigation due to its costs. Similarly, in cases such as Knickerbocker Toy Co. Inc. v. AzrakHamway International Inc.[2] and American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc.[3] , U.S. courts applied the de minimis principle to address copyright violations. However, numerous cases have rejected de minimis arguments, penalizing infringers for even minor violations. Thus, the application of the de minimis principle is not guaranteed in all instances of trivial copyright infringements.
In India, few precedents address the use of copyrighted content on social media or recognize de minimis as an independent legal defense. Similarly, in other jurisdictions, courts often equate the de minimis defense with fair use and have frequently rejected it as a valid argument in copyright infringement cases. However, In India TV Independent News Service (P) Ltd. v. Yashraj Films (P) Ltd. [4] , the Delhi High Court examined the application of the de minimis principle to copyright infringement in India. The Court held that de minimis could address minor copyright violations, as it offers a simpler and less time-consuming alternative to the fair use defense, which may not be suitable for trivial infractions. It identified five factors to assess de minimis: (i) the harm's size and nature, (ii) adjudication costs, (iii) the purpose of the violated legal obligation, (iv) effects on third-party rights, and (v) the wrongdoer’s intent.
Similarly, in Shemaroo Entertainment Limited v. News Nation Network Private Limited[5] , the Bombay High Court while considering the defense of de minimis principle opined that the applicability of the de minimis principle depends not only on the quantitative aspects such as duration of exploitation but also on the qualitative aspect, namely the purpose for which the copyrighted work is used.
Nevertheless, relying upon the aforesaid decisions it will be incorrect to conclude that trivial use of copyrighted material is never considered infringement. Therefore, it is for the legislature and the Apex Court to statutorily recognize or consider the defense of the de minimis principle in cases of Copyright infringement.
