The “de minimis” principle has been derived from the Latin maxim “de minimis non curat lex” meaning “the law does not concern itself with trifles.” [1] It implies that trifling or small issues, i.e., issues which are of little or no importance are not taken into consideration by the law. [2] De Minimis is a common law principle which dates back to almost the fifteenth century. [3] It stipulates that the judges will not take notice of extremely minor violations of law. Courts usually apply the de minimis doctrine to avoid adjudicating a matter so trivial that it is not deserving of judicial scrutiny.
The rationale behind this principle is to prevent the courts from being overworked or overburdened and saving judicial resources, like time. Most of the nations have not implemented this principle statutorily, but India has. The “de minimis” principle is a defense in criminal law under Section 33 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (previously, Section 95 of Indian penal Code, 1860) as ‘Act causing slight harm.’ This doctrine also serves as a defense in matters related to Intellectual property rights, most notably in cases of alleged copyright infringement.
The Dynamic Nature of Intellectual Property
The nature of Intellectual Property is inherently dynamic, perpetually advancing, and developing with advancements in technology and modern innovations. As a result, the Indian Intellectual Property landscape has to continuously evolve to keep up with the global issues. India has been extremely proactive in this scenario; drafting new laws and regulations to safeguard the rights of its citizens in matters related to IP.
A prime example of this commitment to evolve IP landscape is India’s stance on de minimis as a defense in cases of copyright infringement. Unlike criminal law, there is no specific statute that explicitly mentions the de minimis principle as a defense under the Copyright Act of 1957. However, due to various Indian judgements, the doctrine has gradually been accepted as a valid defense to allegations of copyright infringement. [4]
Key Precedents on De Minimis in Copyright
The de minimis principle was first applied by the Indian judiciary in the 2011 case of Super Cassette Industries and Ors. v. Chintamani Rao. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court rejected the de minimis defense in this case, arguing that Indian copyright law clearly defines each party’s rights and identifies exceptions to infringement. The judge concluded that the de minimis principle cannot be used as a legitimate defense against copyright infringement allegations under Indian law since it is not contained in the statute.
Thus, a general principle, like that of ‘de minimis’ cannot be applied by the courts in the present case. [5] [6]
A watershed moment in the Indian IPR history was judgement by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. Yashraj Films Private Limited. [7] It was in this case that the ‘de minimis’ principle was accepted for the first time by the Indian Courts in the field of Intellectual Property. In this case, the plaintiffs, i.e., Yashraj Films Private Limited had accused the defendants, i.e., Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd & Ors. of Copyright Infringement as they had allegedly copied the first line of the popular Bollywood Song “Kajra Re Kajra Re” in an advertisement in a television show. In the other instance, a singer sang nine stanzas from nine songs that had made her popular on the chat show “India Beats.” The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants had violated their copyright in the sound recordings in both cases. [8] The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court laid down five factors which would determine the defence of ‘de minimis’:
- The size and type of the harm;
- The cost of adjudication;
- The purpose of the violated legal obligation;
- The effect on the legal rights of the third parties;
- The intent of the wrongdoer.
The Division Bench determined that the harm in the first case was minimal as there was no personal financial advantage and only five words from a five-stanza song were utilized in a consumer awareness advertisement. In the second case, the court observed that the singer sang nine songs for less than 10 minutes throughout the course of the 45-minute conversation show. The court stressed that the defendants’ goal was to educate the audience about the aspiring singer’s accomplishments and how she got started in the music business. The Division Bench determined that the defendants’ acts were trivial in both cases, making them eligible for the de minimis defense.
This case was a pivotal point as it acknowledged that insignificant uses of copyrighted material do not always warrant legal action. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog also said, “In our opinion, the lack of consistency in the judicial opinions is no ground to conclude that de minimis is not a viable copyright infringement defence. A particular approach may be criticized and a particular approach may be opined to be the best, but certainly not to say that the lack of consistency would be a ground to hold that de minimis is not a viable copyright infringement defence” setting a precedent for future copyright infringement cases in India.
Another important judgement was that in the case of Saregama India Ltd. Vs. Viacom 18 Motion Pictures & Ors [9]. In this case, a renowned Bollywood actor, Anupam Kher had recited four-to-five words from the famous Hindi song- “Mere Sapno Ki Rani.” The plaintiff alleged that this was a copyright infringement of the music and the lyrics. The plaintiff was denied relief mainly due to three reasons:
- The words were not sung to the original melody, so there was no musical infringement;
- The words ‘Mere Sapno Ki Rani’ could not be said to have originality;
- The use of less than seven seconds was too insignificant to support a claim under the de minimis doctrine.
Justice I.P Mukerji further observed: ““Let us assume that the rendition of those four words was infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in the lyrics. It has no impact, no effect and causes no loss to anybody. It is trifling. It is minimal.” Thus, the de minimis defense was allowed in this case.
In the case of Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Shreya Broadcasting Pvt. [10] (2019), the Delhi High Court relied on five factors which were previously laid down in the case of India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. Yashraj Films Private Limited. The court carefully examined the evidences and arguments and found that there was at least five hundred minutes of infringement. As a result, the court refused to accept the de minimis defence and plaintiff was granted compensatory damages.
Conclusion
Intellectual property is a continuously changing subject that presents many difficulties, especially for nations like India. It is crucial that India carefully manages these issues as the landscape of rights and transgressions keeps changing. In this situation, knowing the difference between rights and infringements is essential. The Indian legal system must find a careful balance between safeguarding artists’ rights and preventing the courts from becoming overloaded with cases involving minor infractions.
The dynamic nature of intellectual property law means that each new judgment contributes to an evolving jurisprudence. This evolution is necessary to address the unique challenges posed by technological advancements and globalization. Courts must distinguish between serious infractions and small ones that might not call for judicial action. In conclusion, India needs to be careful to discern between minor infractions and serious infringements as it works to improve its intellectual property regime. By doing this, India can defend the rights of creators in this fast-paced industry while promoting an atmosphere that values innovation and originality.
End Notes
| [1] | B. A. Garner, Ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed., West Group, 1999. |
| [2] | “ICLR,” [Online]. Available: https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/glossary/de-minimis-non-curat-lex/. [Accessed 1 December 2024]. |
| [3] | S. Chauhan, “What do you understand by De minimis non curat lex?,” 19 September 2019. [Online]. Available: https://blog.ipleaders.in/de-minimis-non-curat-lex/. [Accessed 1 December 2024]. |
| [4] | V. Menon, S. Shah and P. Shah, “Elevating De Minimis To Maximus: Analyzing Indian Copyright Law,” 29 July 2024. [Online]. Available: https://naiknaik.com/2024/07/29/elevating-de-minimis-to-maximus-an-analysis-in-indian-copyright-law/. [Accessed 1 December 2024]. |
| [5] | S. Eshwar, “Is It Fair (Use)? De Minimis As Defense In Copyright Infringement,” 14 August 2020. [Online]. Available: https://irglobal.com/article/is-it-fair-use-de-minimis-as-defense-in-copyright-infringement/. [Accessed 2 December 2024]. |
| [6] | N. Uppin, “Is Minor Usage of Media Material Copyright Infringement?,” 11 January 2022. [Online]. Available: https://thepalaw.com/copyright/is-minor-usage-of-media-material-copyright-infringement/. [Accessed 2 December 2024]. |
| [7] | India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd & Ors. V. Yashraj Film Pvt. Ltd., MANU/DE/3928/2012. |
| [8] | N. Lodha and M. Nandkeolyar, “Defense of ‘De Minimis’ in IP matters in India,” 12 October 2022. [Online]. Available: https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/10/12/defense-of-de-minimis-in-ip-matters-in-india/#:~:text=The%20principle%20of%20’de%20minimis,does%20not%20require%20judicial%20scrutiny.. [Accessed 2 December 2024]. |
| [9] | Saregama India Ltd. vs. Viacom 18 Motion Pictures & Ors., MANU/WB/0064/2013. |
| [10] | Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. vs. Shreya Broadcasting, MANU/DE/0754/2019. |
Author: Preetyorthi Dasgupta is 2nd Year B. A.LL.B (Hons.) at Chanakya National Law University, Patna.
