Creators, musicians, production houses, and brands all share one problem: the law governing creative work was written before streaming platforms, synthetic media, influencer economies, and cross-border licensing became the norm. Rights are asserted in cease-and-desist letters, enforced through takedown notices, and litigated under copyright, trade mark, personality-rights, and contract principles that do not always map neatly onto how work is actually made and monetised today. This practice represents those on both sides of that gap — creators whose work has been taken without consent, and businesses that need disputes resolved without compromising ongoing releases, ad campaigns, or talent relationships.
The work spans musical bands and independent artists asserting ownership over their compositions, digital creators whose content has been misappropriated on ad campaigns and brand pages, celebrity and influencer likeness used without release, and production houses navigating collaboration, licensing, and distribution agreements. Representation is available before the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court, and commercial courts across India, with remote-first handling for creators and businesses based outside Delhi.
What This Practice Covers
Five clusters of work define the media and entertainment practice. First, digital rights and platform disputes — counter-notifications to wrongful YouTube takedowns, Content ID fights, DMCA-equivalent responses under the Information Technology Act, and Section 79 safe-harbour questions for intermediaries. Second, personality and publicity rights — unauthorised use of voice, image, likeness, name, or signature phrases in advertising, merchandising, or AI-generated media. Third, content licensing and collaboration — music publishing, sync licensing, co-authorship, joint-ownership disputes where no split sheet or written agreement exists, and release-form gaps. Fourth, production house and independent-label counsel — talent agreements, morality clauses, distribution, master recording rights, and commissioning. Fifth, brand and influencer-brand disputes — unauthorised use of independent artists' work in ad campaigns, morality-clause invocations against influencers, and ASCI complaint handling.
Digital Rights, Platform Takedowns & Counter-Notifications
Platform takedowns rarely turn on who is actually right. They turn on whose notice reaches the platform first, whose paperwork is cleaner, and whose response is drafted to the platform's internal standard rather than to a judge. For creators who have been wrongfully struck — a reaction video taken down over a few seconds of licensed footage, a cover removed despite a statutory licence, a livestream cut mid-broadcast because a rival filed a bad-faith claim — the immediate question is whether to counter-notify, to write to the platform's legal team, or to initiate proceedings so the platform has judicial cover to restore the content.
Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 sets out fair-dealing exceptions that are narrower than US-style fair use but still meaningful: criticism, review, reporting, and personal use remain protected. The IT Act's safe-harbour regime under Section 79, as read with the 2021 Intermediary Guidelines, requires platforms to remove content on a valid notice but also expects intermediaries not to act arbitrarily. When a rights-holder's notice is plainly defective — wrong copyright owner, no valid ownership claim, or a takedown used as a competitive tactic — platforms do restore content, but they do it on paperwork, not outrage. The practice drafts counter-notifications, platform escalations, and injunction petitions that pair with that paperwork.
Personality Rights, Voice, Image, and Likeness
Indian courts have built a working doctrine of personality and publicity rights out of the right to privacy under Article 21, the passing-off action in trade mark law, and the tort of misappropriation. The Supreme Court's reasoning in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India on informational privacy, the Delhi High Court's injunction practice in cases involving actors and public figures, and earlier High Court authority on personality as a protectable interest together give independent artists, actors, athletes, and public figures real remedies against unauthorised commercial use.
The practice handles injunction proceedings against unauthorised merchandise, AI-generated deepfakes using a person's voice or image, brand campaigns that use a celebrity's likeness without release, and morphed content intended to trade on someone's recognisability. On the defence side, the practice represents brands, agencies, and creators who have been accused of misusing likeness — where the claim is overbroad, where a release or licence does cover the use, or where the contested use falls within satire, commentary, or genuine newsworthiness.
Content Licensing, Joint Authorship & Collaboration Disputes
Most disputes between collaborators begin when a song, script, series, or brand idea becomes valuable after the fact. Under Section 2(z) of the Copyright Act, a work of joint authorship is one produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of one is not distinct from that of the other. Section 17 addresses ownership, including the position of works made in the course of employment or commissioning. When no written agreement exists, the law's default rules rarely match the parties' own understanding — and that gap is where the litigation begins.
The practice advises musicians, writers, and creative teams on how to assert or defend ownership where split sheets, work-for-hire language, or assignment deeds are missing, incomplete, or contradicted by conduct. It handles exits from bands, collectives, and production partnerships, the recovery of masters and publishing rights, and the enforcement or renegotiation of royalty arrangements. For ongoing relationships, the practice drafts and negotiates the agreements that prevent these disputes — split sheets, co-writer agreements, producer points, and assignment and licence terms.
Production Houses, Independent Labels & Commissioning
Production houses, OTT content studios, and independent labels require continuous legal support rather than one-off litigation work. Talent agreements, commissioning documents, music clearances, location releases, morality clauses, option agreements, and distribution arrangements all need to be drafted in a way that is defensible when a dispute arises — not merely signed because the shoot starts on Monday. The practice offers fractional or matter-wise counsel to production houses and labels, combining transactional drafting with dispute-readiness.
On the disputes side, typical matters include breach of exclusivity, overlapping commissions, unpaid synchronisation fees, unauthorised exploitation of commissioned work, and disputes over derivative rights (sequels, spin-offs, format rights). Where the underlying contract is ambiguous — or where a party has relied on course of dealing rather than contract — the practice prepares the dispute with an eye to early settlement leverage rather than extended litigation where possible.
Influencer, Morality-Clause & Brand-Campaign Disputes
Influencer and brand relationships have grown faster than the contracts that govern them. Morality clauses are routinely invoked — sometimes correctly, often opportunistically — to terminate campaigns, withhold payment, or reclaim brand fees after reputational incidents. ASCI guidelines on influencer disclosure (2021, revised in 2023–2024 through further advisories) overlay a regulatory layer on top of contract. The practice represents influencers and creators whose contracts have been terminated, whose fees have been withheld, or who have been pulled into ASCI complaints, as well as brands seeking to enforce morality-clause termination or recover fees.
A separate stream of work involves brand use of independent artists' music or visual work in advertising campaigns without licence — typically resolved through strategic cease-and-desist, platform action, and where necessary, injunction proceedings in the Delhi High Court or the commercial courts having jurisdiction over the brand's operations. The strategic question is almost always whether to ask for damages, settlement on commercial terms, a public acknowledgment, or an injunction — the right answer depends on the artist's objectives rather than the loudest posture.
How Matters Are Handled
Media and entertainment matters move faster than most other civil work. Platform windows for counter-notifications are measured in days. Ad campaigns that misuse a creator's work often have a planned run-time that makes every week of delay a permanent loss. Morality-clause terminations, on either side, become harder to unwind once publicly announced. The practice engages with that tempo through rapid triage, a standing relationship with litigation counsel in cities outside Delhi for cross-border filings, and a working preference for preserving the commercial relationship where that is still possible — without conceding legal position.
Engagements typically begin with a paid strategy consultation to evaluate the dispute, the available evidence, the strength of ownership or defence claims, and the realistic remedies — takedown, damages, injunction, negotiation, or combination. Where the matter is time-sensitive (an ongoing takedown, a live ad campaign, a morality-clause termination in progress), the practice offers accelerated response scheduling; the contact form has a dedicated option for platform-emergency matters with a response target of 24 hours on business days.
Facing a platform takedown, creator dispute, or misuse of your work?
For platform-emergency matters, flag the inquiry as time-sensitive when writing in — response target of 24 hours on business days. You can also complete a structured preliminary case assessment online — it captures the situation, platform, urgency, and evidence in a few minutes.