Indian Film Production Giant Yash Raj Films Sues Triller for Copyright Infringement

 YashRaj Films Private Limited v. Triller Inc [CS(COMM) 9/2023]

Introduction

The case Yash Raj Films Private Limited v Triller Inc. talks about the parts of an intermediary platform in combatting copyright violation. The present case was filed by a reputed one of the biggest film production and distribution companies, Yash Raj Films for violation of their copyright by a US-based short videotape platform, Triller. Yash Raj Films sought an injunction as well as damages for infringing the same as for the copyright violation. The plaintiff contended that the impugned platforms contained diverse features, similar to the audio extraction quality, which are beyond the limited part of an intermediary specified under Section 79(2)(a) of the IT Act, thereby disentitling the defendant from the ‘safe- harbour' protection guaranteed to interposers under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (a USA enactment, which is included in Indian law and read in Information Technology Act, 2000).

The fundamental grievance of the offended party is that “the stage of the respondent employments an extraction instrument, which makes accessible the plaintiff’s copyright works to its clients for uploading of audio-visual content/short video and making modern works epitomizing the plaintiff’s copyright works, without a substantial permit from the plaintiff.”

“All mediators are required to take the due diligence measures recorded under Rule 3 of the Information Technology Rules.”

The court has issued a perception to Triller in the suit as well as the application for interim relief. Triller in defense will likely claim the statutory shield that is provided to mediators under India's Information Technology Act 2000 (the "IT Act").

Meaning of Mediators/Intermediaries

Section 2(w) defines the term "intermediary" under the IT Act. It defines an intermediary as any person who, on behalf of another person, receives, stores, or transmits any electronic record or provides any service concerning that record. This broad definition encompasses various entities that facilitate electronic communication and transactions, including internet service providers, web hosting companies, social media platforms, search engines, and online marketplaces. These intermediaries facilitate the exchange of information or services between users, but they do not generate or modify the content themselves.

One key aspect of the legal framework surrounding intermediaries is their liability for the content transmitted or stored on their platforms. Many laws include provisions that grant intermediaries certain immunities or limited liability protections from being held responsible for illegal or harmful content posted by users, provided they act as neutral platforms and comply with certain prescribed obligations, such as implementing content moderation policies or responding to lawful requests from authorities.

Safe Harbours an Immunity for Intermediaries from Liability

The "safe harbour" provision in the Information Technology (IT) Act of 2000, particularly in Section 79, provides immunity to intermediaries for certain third-party content hosted, stored, or transmitted on their platforms. This provision offers protection to intermediaries from liability arising out of the actions of their users.

Here are the key components of the safe harbor provision:

1.      Limited Liability: Intermediaries are not held liable for any third-party information, data, or communication hosted, stored, or transmitted on their platforms if they meet certain conditions specified under Section 79.

2.      Conditions for Immunity: To qualify for immunity, intermediaries must fulfill certain conditions, including:

·         They must not initiate the transmission, select the receiver of the transmission, or select or modify the information contained in the transmission.

·         They must observe due diligence while discharging their duties under the Act, as mentioned in the previous response.

·         They must comply with the prescribed guidelines or rules and regulations governing their conduct.

3.      Notice and Takedown: Intermediaries are required to act expeditiously to remove or disable access to unlawful content upon receiving actual knowledge or being notified by the appropriate government authorities or affected parties.

4.      No Monitoring Obligation: The safe harbor provision clarifies that intermediaries are not required to actively monitor the content posted or transmitted through their platforms. They are only obligated to take action upon receiving specific complaints or notices of unlawful content.

By providing a safe harbor for intermediaries, the IT Act aims to foster innovation and growth in the digital economy while balancing the need to address illegal or harmful content online. It encourages intermediaries to take reasonable steps to address unlawful activities on their platforms while protecting them from excessive legal liability for the actions of their users.

Liability for Safe Harbours

The liability concerning safe harbor provisions primarily falls under Section 79 of the Act. While intermediaries enjoy certain immunities under this section, there are circumstances where they may lose this protection and become liable for the content hosted, stored, or transmitted on their platforms. These circumstances are outlined in Section 79 itself and other relevant provisions of the IT Act.

Here are the key points regarding liability for safe harbor under the IT Act:

1.      Failure to Observe Due Diligence: If an intermediary fails to observe due diligence while discharging its duties under the Act, it may lose the immunity provided by the safe harbor provision. Due diligence obligations include implementing reasonable security practices, terms of service, and user agreements, and responding to lawful requests and notices.

2.      Actual Knowledge or Awareness: Intermediaries must act expeditiously to remove or disable access to unlawful content upon receiving actual knowledge of its existence on their platforms. Failure to take action after obtaining such knowledge may result in loss of immunity. Additionally, if an intermediary is aware of facts or circumstances indicating unlawful activities, it may lose safe harbor protection.

The Concept of Due Diligence

The concept of due diligence obligation primarily applies to intermediaries, as outlined in Section 79 of the Act. This section mandates that intermediaries observe due diligence while discharging their duties under the Act to qualify for certain immunity from liability for third-party content hosted on their platforms.

The due diligence obligations for intermediaries typically include:

1.      Adoption of Terms of Service/User Agreement: Intermediaries must establish and publish terms of service or user agreements that govern the use of their platforms. These agreements should outline acceptable behavior, prohibited activities, and the consequences for violating the terms.

2.      Implementation of Technological Measures: Intermediaries are expected to implement reasonable technological measures to prevent the hosting, storing, or transmission of unlawful content on their platforms. This may include employing content filtering, moderation tools, or other technical solutions to identify and remove prohibited content.

3.      Responding to Notices: Intermediaries must promptly respond to notices from users or authorities regarding illegal or infringing content hosted on their platforms. They are typically required to have mechanisms in place for receiving and processing such notices and taking appropriate action, such as removing the content or disabling access to it.

4.      Preservation of Information: Intermediaries may be required to preserve information and data related to user accounts, transactions, or communications for a certain period as mandated by law or for investigation or legal proceedings.

5.      Cooperation with Law Enforcement: Intermediaries are expected to cooperate with law enforcement agencies and other authorities in investigating and combating illegal activities conducted through their platforms. This may involve providing information, assisting in the identification of users, or complying with lawful requests for data access or disclosure.

Failure to observe due diligence obligations may result in intermediaries losing their immunity from liability under the IT Act. Therefore, compliance with these obligations is essential for intermediaries to mitigate legal risks and ensure responsible operation of their platforms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the rise of copyright violations on social media and gushing platforms, especially in the setting of Indian film substance, poses noteworthy challenges to the imaginative and financial interface of the film industry. The approach of Social Media Live Spilling (SML) stages on stages like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube has opened up modern roads for people to share live substance, including copyrighted fabric, without legitimate authorization. The Copyright Act of 1957 in India plays a significant part in defending the rights of copyright holders, including those in the film industry. Later occurrences of copyright violations, as exemplified by the case of Yash Raj Movies Private Constrained vs. Triller Inc., emphasize the significance of tending to the part of mediator/intermediaries’ platforms in combating such infringement. The case highlights the obligation of stages that empower clients to extricate and share copyrighted substances without appropriate authorization.