This article is written by Manshi Raj, a final-year BBA LL.B. student at Usha Martin University, Ranchi, Jharkhand. This article discusses copyright issues in relation to Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts, how creators’ rights are protected under current copyright law, significant legal rulings, and the need to find a proper balance between promoting energy and creativity while maintaining the rights of original authors regarding their intellectual properties as digital technology continues to evolve rapidly.
Due to the rise of digital media, the way humans produce, distribute, and share ideas has drastically changed over time. Instagram reels and YouTube shorts are two examples of platforms that users can benefit from using both for entertainment as well as educational purposes; creators are now able to post videos on these platforms and quickly gain a large audience. Despite the success of short form videos, the rapid increase in popularity of these video types has created an increase in concerns about protecting the rights of those who create or own intellectual property (IP), such as music, video film clips, photographs/artwork, etc., when people use those types of materials within their personal work without the proper permissions; as a result, there have been a growing number of copyright disputes across multiple digital platforms because of the use of copyrighted materials without the required authority.
Introduction
Increasingly popular short-form video sharing sites like Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts have changed how we produce, receive, and distribute digital media. Millions of new creators have been enabled by these platforms to display their skills, teach their audiences, sell products and have fun – all in seconds. However, with this increase in use of these platforms comes a corresponding increase in copyright conflicts. One major way copyright conflicts are created is through the unauthorized use of copyrighted music, movie clips, television shows, pictures, and other forms of creatively produced materials. The sharing of these materials via social media really encourages working together and being creative, but creators also have the responsibility of not infringing on the intellectual property rights of others. Through this article, we will explore current laws and legal rulings that apply to short-form videos in general, copyright problems with short-form videos, and the need to protect the rights of creators while fostering creative new ideas.
Legal Framework Governing Copyright on Digital Platforms
Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts operate within the framework of copyright law rather than outside it. In India, copyright protection is governed by the Copyright Act, 1957, which grants authors exclusive rights over literary, musical, artistic, cinematograph, and sound recording works. Under Section 14, copyright owners possess the exclusive right to reproduce, communicate, adapt, and commercially exploit their works. Consequently, incorporating copyrighted music, film clips, photographs, or other protected content into short-form videos without authorization may amount to infringement unless a statutory exception applies.
One of the most significant exceptions is the doctrine of fair dealing under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Fair dealing permits limited use of copyrighted works for purposes such as private research, criticism, review, reporting of current events, and judicial proceedings. Unlike the broader American doctrine of “fair use,” Indian fair dealing is narrowly defined and depends upon the specific statutory purposes. Consequently, creators cannot assume that merely transforming or shortening copyrighted content automatically makes it lawful.
Platform policies further complicate the legal position. Both Instagram and YouTube maintain copyright enforcement mechanisms based on licensing agreements and notice-and-takedown procedures. While these platform policies facilitate rapid enforcement, they do not determine the legality of a use under national copyright law. A video may therefore remain legally protected under the Copyright Act even if it is removed by a platform, or conversely, remain available online despite ultimately constituting copyright infringement.
Case Laws
This article will analyze several important judicial rulings that have fundamentally affected copyright law during the digital age. Included in these landmark cases are R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978) which developed a substantial similarity test to determine whether copyright has been violated through the copying of artistic works; Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008), where the Supreme Court determined how much originality is necessary before an artistic work can be copyrighted; Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. MySpace Inc., in which the court addressed how much liability an internet service provider has for infringing copyrights of third parties; as well as several of the more well-known cases relating to copyright infringement that arise from the internationally based Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube Inc. lawsuit and the United States-based Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., where the court ruled on whether to issue a copyright takedown notice without considering fair use. These decisions provide examples of how courts through these judicial rulings have been attempting to form a balanced approach towards the rights of digital content owners, digital service providers, and creators in a technologically evolving environment.
Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd.(2008)
Although decided before the rise of short-form video platforms, this landmark Supreme Court judgment clarified the importance of licensing in the commercial exploitation of copyrighted musical works. The Court emphasized that copyright owners retain exclusive economic rights unless a statutory licence or contractual permission exists. The decision highlights that digital creators and online platforms cannot commercially exploit copyrighted music merely because technological tools make such use convenient. In the context of Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts, the judgment reinforces the principle that platform-provided music libraries operate through licensing arrangements, whereas the use of copyrighted music obtained from external sources without authorization may expose creators to infringement claims.
Platform Liability and Safe Harbour
The responsibility for copyright infringement on digital platforms extends beyond individual creators. Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, intermediaries such as YouTube and Instagram may claim safe harbour protection from liability for user-generated content, provided they act as neutral intermediaries and comply with due diligence obligations prescribed under law.
The scope of intermediary liability has been significantly shaped by judicial decisions. While Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. MySpace Inc. recognised that intermediaries cannot remain passive when they possess actual knowledge of infringement, the Supreme Court’s decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) clarified that actual knowledge generally arises only upon receipt of a valid court order or government notification. Together, these decisions establish that digital platforms must balance copyright enforcement with protection against arbitrary content removal, making notice-and-takedown mechanisms central to copyright compliance in the digital ecosystem.
Conclusion
By providing an easy way to create and share digital video content, Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts have provided a new way to creatively express one’s self online. The ease of producing and distributing video online means that people may also unintentionally break copyright law through their use of copyrighted materials. Copyright violators face potential legal liability if they use protected content; excessive enforcement actions against copyright violators can discourage creativity and innovation.The emergence of artificial intelligence further complicates the copyright landscape. AI-assisted video editing, automated content generation, voice cloning, and synthetic media increasingly blur the distinction between original creation and derivative use. Questions regarding authorship, ownership, and liability for AI-generated content remain largely unresolved under existing copyright legislation, making legislative reform increasingly necessary.
At the same time, copyright compliance cannot depend solely on creators. Digital platforms must continue improving licensing mechanisms, transparent dispute resolution systems, and educational initiatives that help users understand copyright obligations before publishing content. A collaborative approach involving creators, copyright owners, technology companies, and lawmakers is essential to ensure that innovation in short-form content continues without undermining the rights of original authors.
A balanced system of laws that protects original creative works through copyright while allowing for lawful transformative uses is necessary to ensure continued success for the digital economy; the continued advancement of technology requires that creators, platforms, and legislators work collaboratively to encourage responsible content creation, educate creators about copyright law, and respect the rights of creators.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is it possible for me to have access to any song on either an Instagram Reel or a YouTube Short without obtaining permission first?
No. The Instagram and YouTube services can only provide access to songs from other users if they have obtained the appropriate license. If an Instagram or YouTube user uses a copyrighted song in an Instagram Reel or YouTube Short without first obtaining permission, it would constitute a violation of copyright law.
2. Is providing attribution (credit) to the original creator sufficient for avoiding copyright infringement?
No. Awarding attribution to the original creator of a work does not provide the copyright holder with permission to use the work, nor does it provide any protection from being sued for infringement unless the creator has obtained permission to use the work.
3. What does the term “fair dealing” mean under Indian copyright legislation?
Fair dealing refers to a series of exceptions in the Copyright Act, 1957 that allow certain limited uses of copyrighted works free of charge for the purposes of research, private study, criticism or review of the work, or reporting current events, provided they comply with the conditions set forth by law.
4. May Instagram or YouTube delete my content if they find that it is a violation of copyright law?
Yes. Both Instagram and YouTube have copyright infringement reporting procedures and both platforms have the right to delete or disable content they have determined is a copyright infringement. Repetitive copyright infringements could also result in an account being suspended or terminated.
5. How can I avoid committing a copyright infringement when creating content?
In addition to creating your own original content, a creator should also obtain any applicable licensing; use only royalty-free content; and know what the scope of copyright exceptions are before using any other person’s work.
6. Does adding filters, captions, transitions, or editing make copyrighted content original?
No. Simply adding filters, captions, transitions, or minor edits does not automatically create a new copyrighted work or avoid infringement. Courts generally examine whether the resulting work is sufficiently original or falls within statutory exceptions such as fair dealing. Minor cosmetic changes alone are unlikely to defeat a copyright infringement claim.
