In cases of copyright infringement, three types of action can be taken. The person whose name appears on the work as being its author or publisher is assumed to actually be its author or publisher, as the case may be, and can initiate proceedings.

Infringing copies of any copyrighted work and all the plates which have been used or are intended to be used to produce such infringing copies are deemed to be the property of the owner of the copyright.

Civil Action

Civil proceedings can be initiated against a person who infringes copyright. The owner of the copyright can pray to the Court for:

1. an injunction
2. damages
3. an account of profits
4. damages for conversion

Proceedings may be initiated by the Copyright Owner or an exclusive licensee. However, Section 56 of the Act says that where the several rights comprising the copyright in any work are owned by different persons, the owner of any such right shall may individually enforce such right by means of any suit, action or other proceeding without making the owner of any other right a party to such suit, action or proceeding. He is entitled to remedies provided by this Act to the extent of the right he owns.

The costs of all parties in any proceedings in respect of the infringement of copyright are at the discretion of the court. If the defendant proves that at the date of the infringement he was not aware and had no reasonable ground to believe that copyright subsisted in the work, the plaintiff is not entitled to any remedy other than an injunction in respect of the infringement and a decree for the whole or part of the profits made by the defendant by the sale of the infringing copies as the court may in the circumstances deem reasonable under Section 55.

The District Court concerned has the jurisdiction in suits against copyright infringement. Under Section 62, this includes a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person(s) instituting the suit or other proceeding actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or personally work for gain.

Criminal Action

Since knowingly infringing or abetting the infringement of copyright is a criminal offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, infringers can be punished with:

1. imprisonment
2. fines
3. the seizure of infringing copies of the work

Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of the copyright in a work shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees.

Under Section 63A, this penalty is enhanced on second and subsequent covictions to a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees.

Under Section 63B, any person who knowingly uses a pirated copy of a computer programme is liable to be imprisoned for a term which shall not be less than seven days but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees.

A police officer not below the rank of a sub inspector may seize infringing copies of a work without a warrant. The person from whom they have been seized may apply to a Magistrate to have them restored.

Any person who knowingly makes, or has in his possession, any plate for the purpose of making infringing copies of any copyrighted work is liable to be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years and is also liable to fine.

No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act under Section 70.

Administrative Action

In addition to this, an administrative remedy in the form of an Anton Piller Order can be obtained. These orders direct opponents to allow applicants to search their premises for evidence (of infringement) and seize such evidence.

They are granted if there is:
(a) a very strong prima facie case against the opponent
(b) a risk that the opponent will destroy or conceal evidence which he has been shown to possess
(c) serious potential or actual damage to the applicant.

The suspected infringer is not given notice of the search.

The order is named after the case of Anton Piller KG vs Manufacturing Processes Limited, 1976 although it was first granted by Templeman J in EMI Limited v Pandit, 1975. It does not grant the applicant the right to search the opponent’s premises. As Lord Denning put it, “Let me say at once that no court in this land has any power to issue a search warrant to enter a man’s house so as to see if there are papers or documents there which are of an incriminating nature, whether libels or infringements of copyright or anything else of the kind. No constable or bailiff can knock at the door and demand entry so as to inspect papers or documents. The householder can shut the door in his face and say, ‘Get out.’ That was established in the leading case of Entick v. Carrington (1765), 19 State Tr. 1029. None of us would wish to whittle down that principle in the slightest. But the order sought in this case is not a search warrant. It does not authorise the plaintiff’s solicitors or anyone else to enter the defendants’ premises against their will. It does not authorise the breaking down of any doors, nor the slipping in by a back door, nor getting in by an open door or window … The plaintiffs must get the defendants’ permission. But it does do this: It brings pressure on the defendants to give permission. It does more. It actually orders them to give permission – with, I suppose, the result that if they do not give permission, they are guilty of contempt of court.”