Analysis On Safeguarding Intellectual Property In The Era Of Bite-Sized Videos

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Intellectual Property

Published: 2026-08-23T17:59:08.918215+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:12:10.584+00:00

ANALYSIS ON SAFEGUARDING INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY IN THE ERA OF BITE-SIZED VIDEOS

Liya Fathima, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the evolution and application of copyright law in social media platforms, with a focus on the Indian context. It provides a historical overview of copyright, from the Statute of Anne to contemporary Indian legislation, and explores the adaptation of Indian copyright law to the digital realm, including the 2012 amendment and accession to WIPO internet treaties. The study analyzes the implementation of copyright mechanisms by major social platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, detailing their policies, content ID systems, and DMCA takedown processes. Relevant case law is reviewed, covering the concept of intermediary liability and "dynamic injunctions" in Indian jurisprudence. The paper also considers the ramifications of copyright malpractice, including revenue losses for creators due to widespread infringement.

Proposed solutions encompass improved infringement-detection technology, enhanced tools for creators to report violations, stricter law enforcement, and increased collaboration between platforms and stakeholders. The study concludes that addressing pervasive copyright infringement on social media requires proactive methods and balanced cooperation among interested parties to protect intellectual property rights while fostering innovation. This necessitates the continuous evolution of legal frameworks to keep pace with advancing technology and online environments. Keywords: Intellectual property, copyright, social media, infringement.

1. INTRODUCTION

The exponential rise of social media over the past decade is one that simply cannot be ignored by anyone who consumes media and focuses on media trends. To put things in perspective, social media platforms that are used in large numbers among the youth in the age group of 18- 29, such as Instagram and YouTube, have witnessed a significant rise in users in comparison to the last decade. Instagram went from 90 million monthly active users in January 2013 to a reported 2,000 million monthly active users as of December 2021. Such unprecedented growth, however, has not been without its fair share of issues. Instagram, Facebook and now YouTube, through its reels and shorts feature, have gained users through content being made off of 10 to 15-second snippets of songs and movie scenes.

Production companies have earlier taken action on the same, citing copyright infringement, along with several other Intellectual Property Rights violations. This gives rise to the question of how much an intellectual property right such as copyright is neglected by the wide majority, including the social media giants. Before we delve into that, the author seeks to explain in detail the concept of copyright.

2. COPYRIGHTS AND IT’S EVOLUTION

Copyright can be defined as a bunch of exclusive rights granted by law to the creators of literary, artistic, musical, cinematographic and other forms of creative works1. TThese rights allow the owner of exclusive copyright rights such as control, distribution and reproduction over a limited period. The inception of this concept can be traced back to the early days of the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution profoundly impacted copyright, giving birth to the steam-powered press in the 19th Century, which then gave birth to transformative printing technology. Earlier, the process of printing was regarded as a strenuous and labourintensive job, thereby resulting in the production of limited copies. As the copies published were limited owing to the time-consuming process, the printed materials were only accessible to very few as it was unaffordable to the larger public.

In short, introducing the printing press was critical as it banished all hegemonic control of information. However, the flourishing of the printing press gave the more extensive public access to more copies of works as it accentuated the process of printing copies more effectively and 1World Intellectual Property Organization, Copyright, https://www. wipo. int/copyright/en/ (last visited June 25, 2024).

inexpensively. This, however, gave the governments a colossal responsibility to protect the rights of the authors and publishers, which were now vulnerable to exploitation owing to the prospering of the printing press. As a result, various governments initiated the system of granting exclusive rights to authors and publishers from exploiting and abusing their works through unauthorised reproduction. As there was a need to have proper norms and rules to regulate this, the Statute of Anne, deemed the first copyright law, was introduced in England in 1710. Under this Statute, the law recognised copyright as a legal right rather than a privilege granted by the government, which was awarded to the author for a term of 14 years, capable of getting renewed after the initial period.

The law empowered the author or the publisher the right against their works being pirated or copied without consent. Over the following centuries, the introduction of this Statute paved the way for the passing of various other copyright laws worldwide. The main objective of all the laws is the promotion of creativity and dissemination of knowledge, simultaneously allowing the creators to protect their work.

3. INDIAN COPYRIGHT LAW

The Copyright Act of 1857 was the first-ever statute brought within the Indian subcontinent that dealt with Copyright regulations. Like most acts established during that period, copyright law was also an aftermath of colonisation. The first law was passed in 1847, called the Copyright Act of 1847, during the reign of the British East India Company and was an imitation of English Law. The government was authorised to grant a licence for publishing posthumously if the copyright owner refused permission when they were alive. The Act of 1957 has been amended several times to meet national and international standards. The incorporation of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in the Copyright Act enabled Indian authors and publishers to be protected in countries that are signatories to the convention.

The Copyright Law of India was enacted by the British colony, and like most of the acts of that time, it was an imitation of English law. The first copyright act of India was enacted in 1847, during the regime of the East India Company. As per the act, the term of copyright was either for the lifetime of the author plus seven years or 42 years. The government had the power to grant the publishing licence after the death of the author if the owner of the copyright refused permission. All suits and infringements related to copyright came under the jurisdiction of the highest local civil court. The act was replaced by the Copyright Act of 1914. The act of 1914

was the first 'modern' copyright law of India. It was the first law to include all works of art and literature under the ambit of copyright. It was a replica of the English law of 1911. It was done by the British to ease the passage of literature over the colonial subcontinent. The Copyright Act of 1957 came into force on the 21st of January 1958. It has then been amended in 1983, 1984, 1992, 1994, 1999 and 2012. The Copyright Act, 1957 consists of 79 sections fewer than 15 chapters while the Copyright Rules, 1958 consists of 28 rules under 9 chapters and 2 schedules. 2 As per Section 13 of the Act of 1957, the protection is conferred on literary works, dramatic works, musical works, artistic works, cinematographic films and sound recordings. According to Section 14 of the Copyright Act of 1958, it is a bunch of absolute rights vested with the owner of the copyright.

These absolute rights can be exercised exclusively by the owner of the copyright or any other person who is duly licensed by the original copyright holder, and the protection extends to all original literary and artistic work. Though the right is something that is granted to the creator during the origin of the creation, it is better enhanced with the registration of the same as the Copyright registration does not confer any rights and is merely a prima facie proof of an entry in respect of the work in the Copyright Register maintained by the Registrar of Copyrights. 3 The Copyright protection is granted in two forms, ie, Economic Rights and Moral Rights of the author.

4. ADAPTATION OF INDIA’S COPYRIGHT ACT TO THE DIGITAL AGE

The Indian Copyright act has undergone multiple amendments to keep itself up to date with the digital age. It is undeniable that there is an interconnection between technological development and the law of copyright. The invention of multiple factors like sound recording, cinematography, and the digitisation of works has led to an urgent need to advance copyright laws.4 The last decades have brought forth an unprecedented acceleration in the growth of digital technology and henceforth the want of stringent copyright rules have increased to a great extent as well. Owing to the revolutionary developments, the Indian Copyright Act was amended in the year 1994 and 1999 as the digitization of works were becoming more prevalent

2 Copyright Rules 1957, COPYRIGHT RULES (1957),

accessed 29 June 2024. 3'What's There in a Copyright Registration? An Indian Perspective, LEGAL 500 (2023), accessed 29 June 2024. 4Cinematograph Films, LEGAL SERV. INDIA (Sept. 14, 2023), and also to make the law compatible with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). 5 Though the act has been amended multiple times, the amendment in 2012 was regarded as the most significant one amongst these as it was bought in to address the challenges posed by the digitisation of works and the internet, as copyright protects “original authors of worship” that are fixed in any tangible medium of expression from which they can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

The significant amendment of 2012 also included provisions related to digital right management (DRM)6 which penalised the circumventing of technological measures adapted by the copyright owners to enhance protection to their works. This amendment, however, only focused on the possible infringements that can be caused by the internet partially. It succeeded in introducing the concept of statutory licences for certain types of works, the establishment of the Copyright Board as an appellate authority and the introduction of safe harbour provisions for internet service providers but was nevertheless insufficient. The later amendment however introduced provisions related to online piracy and intermediary liability.

This has obliged the internet service providers to take down infringing content and the implementation of measures to prevent the uploading and sharing of content on their platforms. We are well aware of the specialized agency of the United Nations, ie, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) established in 1967. 7 The main objective of the organisation was the promotion and protection of Intellectual Property globally. This organisation has played a significant role in developing IP law and policy. It has also been involved in providing assistance to developing countries to aid them strengthen and improve their IP systems and promote innovation and creativity. The organisation has evolved from time to time to emerge as a key player in transforming the IP landscape worldwide.

As a part of improvising and enhancing the IP landscape globally, the response to the digital 5James TC, Indian Copyright Law and Digital Technologies, (2002), accessed 30 June 2024. 6Scaria AG, The Significant Amendment of 2012 Also Included Provisions Related to Digital Right Management (DRM), 17 JIPR 463, 463–477 (2012), accessed 29 June 2024. 7'World Intellectual Property Organization, Encyclopaedia Britannica, (last visited June 30, 2024).

revolution was through the two treaties framed in 1996 called WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). 8 These treaties aimed to provide enhanced protection for copyright owners and performers in the digital era. WCT, on the one hand, protects the rights of authors of literary and artistic works in the digital environment. 9 In contrast, WPPT focuses on the rights of performers and producers of sound recordings. These two treaties set forth the minimum standards for copyright protection and require signatory countries to provide adequate legal protections for copyright holders. The “Communication to Public” right conferred on a performer has been amended with a new definition.

Now, “communication to the public means making any work or performance available for being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public directly or by any means of display or diffusion other than by issuing physical copies of it, whether simultaneously or at places and times chosen individually, regardless of whether any member of the public actually sees, hears of otherwise enjoys the work or performance so made available. ”10 This provision was introduced in 1994 and the amending of the same is to extend the rights to Internet. This right which was previously exclusive to the author has now been extended to confer it to the performer as well. Apart from this, the WPPT also brought about the “Moral Rights to Performers”. 11 Article 38B ensures a performer the moral right on their performances.

The performer is now empowered to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his performance that would be prejudicial to his reputation as well. 12 Albeit the 2012 amendment that tried to harmonise the copyright law with the internet treaties, WCT and WPPT weren’t ratified by India until 2018. 13 Although this accession was celebrated by the copyright owners, the transmission and replication of copyrighted work along with the pirated versions of the digital work is beyond the authorised copyright holder’s or owner’s 8R. K. Dewan and Co, A Step Towards Protected India, MONDAQ (2018), accessed 1 July 2024. 9 Okediji RL, 'Regulation of Creativity under the WIPO Internet Treaties' (2009) 77 Fordham L Rev 2379 10James TC, Indian Copyright Law and Digital Technologies, (2002), accessed 14 September 2024.

11Thomas Z, Overview of Changes to the Indian Copyright Law, 17 JIPR 324, 324–334 (2012), accessed 1 July 2024. 12 Copyright Act 1957, Section 38B, https://www. indiacode. nic. in/showdata? actid=AC_CEN_9_30_00006_195714_1517807321712&sectionId=14554&sectionno=38B&orderno=52 (last visited Sept. 14, 2024). 13Pandey A, Development in Indian IP Law: The Copyright Amendment Act 2012, IP WATCH (Jan. 22, 2013), accessed 3 July 2024.

control even to this date.

5. IMPLEMENTATION OF COPYRIGHT MECHANISMS BY SOCIAL MEDIA

COMPANIES

The rampant growth of social media has helped influential content creators exhibit their creativity in a way accessible to billions of people online. This has, in turn, helped social media websites like Instagram, Facebook, Youtube etc. , expand their traffic. Social media influencers are undeniably a significant part of social media. These platforms enable the influencers and every person to become someone who is idolised among the masses. Companies that require their products to be advertised approach these influencers for the same, and as a result, the public have been able to discover new brands and products through bloggers. The emergence of social media influencers has expanded our concept of conventional celebrities to a much larger community of influential “micro-celebrities”.

14 The question that subsequently arises is, with these many influencers in place with an abundance of viewers and platforms to display their talents, what is the extent to which the intellectual property rights are protected? It is crucial to keep in mind that every social media site has unique policies and takes significant precautions to safeguard both their users and themselves. YouTube has more than 2 billion monthly users visiting the video-sharing platform for their favourite vlogs, music videos, sports highlights and so on. This platform was founded in 2005 and is the biggest online platform in the world. This is followed by Instagram with around more than two million active users.

15 Both the platforms are largely dominated by the presence of micro-celebrities that affects the interaction of people with these platforms as the presence of these people substantially increases the usage of the same. With the surge of content creators in both the platforms and a plethora in the content they share, let it be their most used feature of “shorts” and “reels” on Youtube and Instagram respectively, the widespread sharing and viewing of the same has however increased the misappropriation of intellectual property. Facebook, now rebranded as Meta, has acquired Instagram, and all three social media giants 14 Nouri M, The Power of Influence: Traditional Celebrity vs Social Media Influencer, SCHOLAR COMMONS, SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY (2018), accessed 8 July 2024. 15McFadden C, YouTube's History and Its Impact on the Internet, INTERESTING ENGINEERING(2020), accessed 8 July 2024.

including WhatsApp come under one corporate giant and the features being identical comes off as no surprise. Therefore, the short video feature is also available on Facebook. Let us analyse the copyright policy of these two prominent social media platforms. Both the platform’s copyright rules apply to all the users of the platform on a global scale, and India is no exception to the same. Instagram and YouTube prioritize safeguarding the intellectual property rights of content creators and demonstrating strict adherence to copyright laws. These platforms take copyright infringement seriously and implement various measures to address such issues. To ensure copyright protection, both platforms encourage copyright holders to submit DMCA takedown notices, prompting the removal of infringing content.

Additionally, they may have policies in place to address repeated infringements, potentially resulting in penalties such as account suspension or termination for frequent violations of copyright laws. Both platforms also consider fair use principles when evaluating copyright claims, allowing specific uses of copyrighted material under specific circumstances. To automate this process, Instagram and YouTube likely employ content recognition systems similar to Content ID. These systems automatically identify and categorize copyrighted content, taking actions such as muting audio or blocking. Furthermore, both platforms offer a counter-notification process that enables users to contest content removal resulting from a DMCA notice.

By rigorously upholding their copyright policies and collaborating with content creators, Instagram and YouTube foster secure environments for users to share their creative works while respecting the rights of others. When users upload content to these platforms, it is assumed they have the necessary rights and permissions. Both applications are equipped with tools and algorithms to identify potential infringements and have the authority to remove such content. YouTube, in particular, places significant emphasis on its copyright policy, employing an advanced Content ID system that uses fingerprinting technology to identify copyrighted material uploaded by users. This system allows copyright holders to submit their content to the Content ID database, further facilitating actions against infringement.

Additionally, YouTube maintains a structured process for copyright holders to submit DMCA takedown notices, ensuring the efficient removal of infringing content. The platform also respects fair use principles, permitting users to dispute claims if their usage qualifies as fair use or if they possess the necessary content rights.

YouTube strongly opposes repeat copyright infringement, potentially leading to consequences like content removal or channel termination. All three platforms confer with non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, sub-licensable, worldwide licence to use, host, distribute, display, run, copy, modify, or publicly perform, translate, create derivative works of the user’s content. If the user deletes the content from Instagram, this licence will end.16 The licence is supposed to cease once the creator of the original work removes the work from the platform. Even though the platform has a solid set of guidelines that indicate adequate copyright protection, the question as to how much this is practised is still vague.

6. CASE LAWS RELATED TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT BY SOCIAL

MEDIA

Social Media platforms are notorious for making their platforms appear to be compliant with IP Regulations and agreements while blatantly disregarding the same. Meta’s Instagram, however, has a rather cunning loophole which they exploit to gain growth in their user base while adhering to compliance requirements simultaneously. Unlike other social media platforms, Instagram's copyright filter takes anywhere from 2 weeks to a month or more (depending on the material's popularity) to remove the copyrighted content. This sounds reasonable until one realizes that Instagram Reels, for example, lose their popularity or promotion in views given by the algorithm within two weeks or, at maximum, a month owing to the short-form nature of content pushed in the same17. So for instance, if there is an unauthorized usage of a song, the song will be shared, reproduced and distributed multiple times.

For a Copyright creator, this implies that their copyright claim will be significantly less effective as the content will have been used, reshared and downloaded multiple times before it finally gets pulled down by the hosting platform. The recent case of Epidemic Sound AB v. Meta Platforms Inc, 202218, where Meta Platforms, 16Instagram and Copyright, COPYRIGHTLAWS (2022), accessed 7 July 2024. 17Social Media Post Lifespan, BLACK SQUARE PRINT MEDIA (2022), accessed 7 July 2024. 18Hickman R, Meta Hit With Suit Over 'Exponential Infringement' In Reels, LAW360 (2022), accessed 14 July 2024.

ie Instagram etc. was hit with a lawsuit by Epidemic Sound, a Swedish Music Label. They claimed statutory damages of 50,000 per track infringed rack infringed on, or actual damages of at least 42 million. 19 The plaintiff contended that the platform has infringed, encouraged the infringement and has also aided such infringement. Instagram also had the original audio feature which enables a user to search for the music that fits their snippet from the music library and also allows the users to use other copyrighted music that Instagram originally doesn’t have rights to through the “original audio” feature. This will then be labelled “original audio” and lets them save that for their own personal use.

Moreover, the brand new feature of reel remix on Instagram has enabled the mixing of videos, users have the option of embedding their own video, including audio, next to an original video. The plaintiff argued that this multiplies the reproduction of the already infringed audio, and the audio gets shared without limits. The music company claims that the company’s unlawful conduct and disregard of copyrights has resulted in more that 80,000 instances of theft of Epidemic’s works per day. 20 The music company has also alleged Meta of storing, curating, reproducing and distributing their music without authorization and without proper licence to do so.

21 Both the Meta platforms enable the users the right to access the label's work through its own music library for any of its users to use, including to download, stream, or incorporate into video content, for free, and some without licence or other authorization. When it comes to the Indian scenario, the Bombay Court recently granted an injunction against

32 Instagram holders in a copyright infringement suit filed by the makers of a web series called

the “Scam 1992: The Harshad Mehta Story”. In the case of Applause Entertainment Limited vs. Meta Platforms Inc. and Others22, the publicity and the character rights of the web series was acquired by Applause Entertainment Pvt. However, it was noticed by the company that several Instagram handles were posting snippets and clips from the web series with the reels feature for the promotion of their business activities. Though multiple actions and complaints 19Konnath H, Meta Can't Ditch Music Label's Infringement Claims Just Yet, LAW360 (2022), accessed 14 July 2024. 20Stassen M, Epidemic Sound Hits Meta with 42M Lawsuit for 'Rampant Infringement' on Facebook and Instagram, MUSIC BUSINESS WORLDWIDE (2022), accessed 16 June 2024. 21Brittain B, Meta Loses Early Bid to Dismiss Swedish Music Label's Copyright Lawsuit, REUTERS (Nov. 28, 2022), accessed 18 July 2024.

22Scam 1992 Dynamic Injunction Order: Another Drop in the Bucket of Broad Precedents? , IPR UPDATE (2023), accessed 19 July 2024.

were filed in furtherance of the same, Instagram failed to take down the infringed content. It was contended by Applause Entertainment that the users continued the infringement from several other accounts and continued sharing the videos without authorization, thus violating the company’s proprietary rights. Likewise, in the case of Youtube, let us take the case of Shree Krishna International Film Productions v Google India and YouTube LLC. 23 This was a long 13 year battle where the plaintiff, who is a renowned film producer and the proprietor of Shree Krishna International filed a suit against Google Inc. , Google India Pvt. Ltd. & Youtube LLC for permanent injunction and damages. It was held against the defendant that they were involved in the act of infringement of plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recording, cinematographic films and audio visual songs.

According to the plaintiff, his works were being unauthorisedly uploaded on Youtube via the app’s feature called “Youtube Downloader ''. The plaintiff’s contention was that no authorization was given to the defendants to share or store his work to the public. The downloader feature enabled the website to store the works without authorization which resulted in exploitation of the plaintiff’s works which in turn generated revenue for the website thereby putting the plaintiff in huge financial losses. In the first case, Meta has vehemently opposed the allegations by Swedish Music label and argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed as the label has not identified any substantial proof or infringing copy as per their allegations on a “Meta property”24. They also contended that the lawsuit lacks basic facts about the presumed violations.

However, the court found the label’s arguments justified enough to carry on the case. The same is ongoing and being closely watched by the music industry and social media as it will have major implications as to how music can be used in social media platforms. When it comes to the case of Shree Krishna International Film Productions v Google India and YouTube LLC, the plaintiff Suneel Darshan won the battle against Youtube. The court awarded damages amounting to Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff and also restrained Google and Youtube from 23Agrawal A, Shree Krishna International Film Productions vs. Google India and YouTube LLC: Revisiting the Intermediary Liability Jurisprudence in the Indian Copyright Law, IPRMENT LAW (Dec. 8, 2019), accessed 18 July 2024. 24Brittain B, Lawsuit Says Meta Stole Hundreds of Songs from Swedish Music Label, REUTERS (July 21, 2022), accessed 17 July 2024.

infringing on the plaintiff’s works. 25 Though the defendants argued that the activity was not known to them under Section 51(a)(i) which states that the “an intermediary is not liable for copyright infringement if it does not have knowledge of the infringing activity and, upon receiving knowledge or awareness of the infringing activity, expeditiously removed or disabled access to the infringing content”. 26Here, it was found that the defendants had knowledge of the infringing activity and failed to take prompt action against the same and they could not take defense under Section 52 either, which enables the concept of “fair use”. Therefore, it was ruled that Youtube and Google LLC were liable for infringement as though being aware of the infringement, they failed to take prompt action towards the same. Moving on to the case of Applause Entertainment Limited vs. Meta Platforms Inc.

and Others, Section 51(a)(i) was applied here as well, however, the contrary was proven that Meta, the intermediary platform did not take any action against the infringement despite having knowledge of the activity. The High Court of Bombay granted a “dynamic injunction”27 in this case. Now, this is a concept that is relatively new. Dynamic injunction enables the original right holder to approach the courts to extend the main injunction order against all mirror websites providing access to the same infringing online locations that were the subject of the main injunction. 28 The issuance of the injunctions can be done when the same website becomes available immediately after issuing the injunction with a different IP address or URL.

29 This provision was brought forth owing to the fact that normal or conventional injunctions were unable to provide adequate relief to the right holder by merely blocking the websites. Injunctions that are normally granted will only protect the infringing website in question. 25Is Intermediary Liability Decision in Shree Krishna Int'l v. YouTube Copyright Dispute in Line with MySpace? , SPICYIP (2020), accessed 17 July 2024. accessed 17 July 2024.

26 Tracing the Development of "Intermediary Liability" in India, CHADHA & CHADHA INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY LAW FIRM, LEXOLOGY (2020), accessed 20 July 2024. 27Applause Entertainment Private Limited vs. Meta Platforms Inc. and Others, SC-IP (2022), accessed 29 July 2024. 28Obhan E and Pillai T, Dynamic Injunctions to Tackle Digital Piracy in India, MONDAQ (2020), accessed 22 July 2024.

29 Khandelwal K, The Sci-Hub Case & The Unique Remedy of a Dynamic Injunction, LAW SCH. POL’Y REV.

(Mar. 1, 2021), accessed 20 July 2024.

However, the infringed content in the same website becomes available in multiple other websites with a different IP address or URL. So a dynamic injunction is crafted in such a way that it will also cover the new IP address or URL without the need for a new judicial procedure to obtain a new injunction. 30 Therefore, this allows the removal of the prospective domain names and web addresses that might provide access to the same illegal file-sharing sites that were covered by the original injunction. 31 The rationale of the court in all the aforementioned cases and the ongoing cases is a clear cut indication as to how intermediaries are not immune from copyright liability only because they are intermediaries. Reasonable measures are to be taken by the intermediaries in consonance with removing the infringing content from their platforms.

They can be held accountable and punished in case the platforms are unwilling to take steps towards removing the content. The decisions of all the cases above prove to be significant as it reaffirms the fact that social media websites are not excused from following copyright law and it is applied to online platforms. The online platforms are supposed to take proactive measures that prevent infringing content from being uploaded to their platforms.

7. AFTER EFFECTS OF MALPRACTICES

There are numerous disadvantages to copyright, but one of the most significant is that it can limit user rights. Furthermore, copyright protection may pose entry barriers for smaller developers or startups, and enforcement can be difficult32. When it comes to copyright infringement, the copyright holder may incur losses since their content would have been infringed beyond control before a prompt action takes place33. The same is a result of the hosting platforms' laxity, which takes a long time to remove the infringing content, and by the time it is removed, the damage has already been done34. As a result, the original copyright holders may lose their possible revenues by the time in which the platforms take down the

30 Van der Donk BBE, How Dynamic Is a Dynamic Injunction?, 15 JIPR (2022),

accessed 25 July 2024.

31 Sareen MK and Kalra K, Dynamic Injunctions – Internet "Injunctions 2.0", ILI (2019),

accessed 28 July 2024.

32 King T, The Disadvantages of Copyrights, LEGAL BEAGLE (Sept. 1, 2023),

. 33Varadaraj A, Advantages and Disadvantages of Copyright Laws, VAKILSEARCH BLOG (2018), accessed 2 Sept. 2024. 34What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Trade Secrets, BVRESOURCES BLOG (Mar. 12, 2018), accessed 4 Sept. 2024.

violating content. Furthermore, these platforms have made it increasingly difficult for the copyright holders to track and take down the infringing content, which has ultimately led to a decrease in the incentive for creators to produce new content on the platform.

8. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Copyright infringement is a complex issue that requires a multi-faceted approach. One key measure is to improve the technology of content recognition. Hosting platforms can achieve this feat by investing in advanced algorithms and artificial intelligence that make the process easier and hassle-free to help identify copyrighted material more efficiently. Digital fingerprinting technology is another method that can identify and block copyrighted material automatically. Hosting platforms should also provide content creators with tools that help them detect and report copyright infringement. This could include user-friendly reporting mechanisms and a control panel that allows creators to track their copyrighted content. With this feature, it becomes easier for the original copyright holder to report and request for the takedown of their infringed content.

Additionally, platforms can implement filters to detect, flag, and remove copyrighted content automatically. In addition to technological solutions, social media platforms should also work closely with copyright holders and law enforcement to enforce existing copyright laws more stringently. This includes responding promptly to takedown requests for infringing content. Imposing stricter penalties and punishments for copyright infringement can also be an effective deterrent. By taking these steps, social media platforms can help to protect the rights of copyright holders and create a more fair and equitable environment for content creators.

9. CONCLUSION

In the current digital age, where content is shared and disseminated at unprecedented speeds, copyright infringement has become increasingly prevalent. However, the importance of combating such infringement on social media platforms cannot be overstated. Addressing this issue requires a multifaceted approach that combines proactive measures, technological adaptability, and stakeholder collaboration.

To effectively tackle copyright infringement, social media platforms must continually evolve their detection and prevention mechanisms to keep pace with rapidly advancing technology. This includes refining content identification systems and streamlining takedown procedures. Simultaneously, copyright owners need to be vigilant and equipped with efficient tools to identify and report violations. The fight against copyright infringement demands a collaborative effort. Social media platforms, copyright holders, and governmental bodies must work in concert to develop and implement comprehensive strategies. This cooperation is essential to strike a delicate balance between safeguarding intellectual property rights and fostering an environment that encourages innovation and creativity.

As the digital landscape continues to evolve, so too must the legal frameworks and technological solutions designed to protect copyrighted material. By maintaining this adaptive approach and fostering strong partnerships among all stakeholders, we can create a more robust and fair digital ecosystem that respects intellectual property while supporting the free exchange of ideas and creative expression.