Introduction
The issue came to light when one of the founders of a company named Dorje Teas put up a post on LinkedIn claiming that they have been served a copyright infringement notice by Shark Tank India for the unauthorized use of clips of their pitch on the show to advertise on Youtube and Meta ads. He had also added that, apart from them, many other companies, as many as 18, that had made their pitch on the show were also tracked down for the same purposes. These companies have disclosed that Google and Meta have flagged their social media posts for copyright infringement and in some cases, even suspended their accounts. The show ‘Shark Tank India’ is a show aimed at boosting the startup culture in India which airs on Sony Entertainment and OTT Platform SonyLIV, both owned and controlled by Culver Max Entertainment trading as Sony Pictures Networks India, making them the key parties in this dispute along with the companies that raised their concerns.
Startups’ Perspective
The main argument of the companies that received the notice was that this action goes against the “ethos of promoting small startups” as stated by one of the founders of Dorje Teas. He questioned how this approach aligns with the show’s stated goal of supporting the Indian startup ecosystem and also added that it was a poor decision by the Sony executives especially because these startups sent significant amounts of money to boost Shark Tank India’s content which provided free publicity for the show. The companies argued that their participation and investment in promoting the show should allow them some usage of the content, even if limited as it would be mutually beneficial for either of the parties.
Show’s Perspective
The show argues that copyright laws necessitate action against unauthorized usage to protect their intellectual property rights and brand identity. As the producer, they need to assert control over the content to maintain the show’s integrity and value. The show’s stance is that in the absence of permission from the copyright holder (Culver Max Entertainment), the use of video clips or footage from Shark Tank India by participating startups constitutes copyright infringement. Even legal experts argued that Sony was well within its rights to assert copyright ownership over the show’s content and take action against unauthorized usage. The startups’ promotional benefits did not override Sony’s exclusive rights as the copyright holder.
Shark Tank India has issued guidelines for participating startups regarding content usage. Companies can share images and videos provided by the show on social media, but cannot use the show’s or Sony’s logos, fonts, or videos elsewhere. Participants can only state “As Seen on Shark Tank India” and are prohibited from claiming approval by the Sharks. These rules aim to prevent copyright infringement while allowing limited promotion of show appearances.
Copyright Law Implications
Shark Tank India falls within the scope of “Cinematograph film” as defined under the Copyright Act . According to Section 2(d)(v) of the Act, Culver Max Entertainment, as the producer of Shark Tank India, is considered the ‘author’ and copyright owner of the show, including all video clips and sound recordings. Without permission from the copyright owner, participants using video clips or footage from the show could be infringing on copyright.
While the Copyright Act of 1957 provides the authors or owners of the content exclusive rights over the content, the doctrine of “fair dealing” or fair use principle serves as an exception and limitation to these rights. Fair dealing allows for the limited use or reproduction of copyrighted works without the permission of the owner. The underlying rationale is to ensure that the progress of creativity, which copyright law aims to promote, is not stifled.
Considering the case of the startups and the producers of the show, the scope of fair dealing under Indian Laws remains narrow when compared to the scope available to the US Counterpart of the show. While the concept of fair dealing in the latter has evolved and has remained progressive through judicial interpretations and legal activism, in India its determination has remained highly fact specific and relied largely on the discretion of courts. Courts have often considered economic impact on the copyright holder and other factors like the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the quantity or substantiality of the portion used and the effect of such a use on the targeted market of the work to assess if the usage was fair or not.
In the case of Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries of 2016 the Delhi High Court recognized in its decision that there could be content online as long as it is authorized, licensed, or comes under the purview of fair dealing if such content is copyrighted. However, it is unclear if there existed a licensing agreement between the producers and the participating startups regarding the use of clips from the show.
Section 52(1) of the Indian Copyright Act establishes several exceptions where the use of a copyrighted work does not constitute infringement. These include fair dealing for private or personal use, including research; for the purpose of criticism or review, whether of that work or any other work; and for the reporting of current events and affairs, including the reporting of a public lecture. These fair use exceptions allow for limited, non-commercial use of copyrighted material without the owner’s permission, in order to balance the interests of copyright holders and the public.
However, as suggested by legal professionals, startups facing copyright violation notices might invoke the de minimis defense, a legal principle meaning “the law does not concern itself with trivial matters.” This defense could apply if startups can prove two key points: first, that the video clips used were extremely brief, making the infringement trivial; and second, that their intention wasn’t to profit from or misuse the producer’s copyright.
The Act defines ‘performance’ as a live visual or acoustic presentation by one or more performers, which could include Shark Tank India participants presenting their products. Participants also may assert performers’ rights as outlined in the Act, provided that they haven’t signed an agreement to include their performance into the Shark Tank India broadcast.
Conclusion
The show’s actions, while strict, are legally justified and in line with copyright laws to protect its intellectual property to maintain its brand and commercial value. Whether the show’s approach fully aligns with its stated goal of supporting startups is debatable as the startups feel the copyright notices contradict the show’s purpose. The dispute highlights the need for clear guidelines and licensing between reality shows and participants. It underscores the tension between copyright law and promoting innovation that shows like Shark Tank India aim to serve. Balancing these interests needs careful legal interpretation and cooperation between producers and startups.
Written by Nissy Elizabeth James, legal Intern @Intepat IP
