Enforcing copyright against large entities: how smaller rights-holders can and do win

Copyright infringement by large organisations — media companies, technology platforms, advertising agencies, and large corporates — is more common than it should be. The infringer's size can make the process feel intimidating, but the legal framework in India is designed to enable rights-holders of any size to enforce their rights effectively, including against entities with far greater resources.

The key is choosing the right tools and, where appropriate, moving quickly.

Why large entities infringe — and how they respond

Large organisations infringe copyright for predictable reasons: internal processes that do not adequately check provenance of creative material, assumptions that small creators will not pursue them, and a tendency to treat legal notices as the start of a negotiation rather than a serious enforcement action. Advertising campaigns, website content, social media posts, music in promotional videos, and photographs in publications are all common vectors.

When a serious legal notice backed by a well-prepared infringement claim arrives, the calculus often changes quickly. Large entities have reputational stakes, in-house legal teams who understand liability exposure, and a preference for settlement over the uncertainty and publicity of court proceedings.

The Delhi High Court as the preferred forum

The Delhi High Court's Intellectual Property Division has developed a sophisticated body of copyright law and a track record of granting urgent interim relief — including ex-parte injunctions — where infringement is clear and harm is ongoing. For rights-holders dealing with large entities that are continuing to exploit infringing material while disputing the claim, an urgent injunction application can be extremely effective. The prospect of having a product pulled, a campaign taken down, or a film's streaming halted pending trial focuses attention remarkably quickly.

Anton Piller orders and discovery

Where there is genuine concern that evidence may be destroyed — for instance, where a defendant might delete usage logs, destroy infringing copies, or remove files before litigation — the court can issue an Anton Piller order permitting inspection and seizure without advance notice to the defendant. This is a powerful tool in the right facts, and one that larger entities rarely expect smaller rights-holders to deploy.

Account of profits: making infringement expensive

One remedy that is particularly relevant against large commercial defendants is an account of profits: requiring the infringer to disgorge the profits made from exploiting the infringing work. In a case where a corporation has used a protected photograph, piece of music, or written work in a commercial campaign that generated significant revenue, the account of profits measure can substantially exceed the actual damage suffered by the rights-holder. This changes the economics of infringement.

Criminal complaints as a parallel track

Wilful copyright infringement is a criminal offence under the Copyright Act. Filing a criminal complaint — particularly where there is clear evidence of knowing infringement by individuals within a large organisation — creates a different kind of pressure. Criminal proceedings are not appropriate in every case, but in cases of egregious commercial exploitation, they can be an important part of the enforcement strategy.

In copyright enforcement work, Vikram Singh Kushwaha has handled disputes where authorship, ownership, and commercial misuse had to be presented with precision against better-resourced entities.

These matters require early preservation of proof, sharply drafted notices, and where necessary, injunction-oriented litigation designed to stop continuing misuse without diluting the creator's claim.