Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Raghav Chadha sought key amendments to the Copyright Act of 1957 to safeguard the interests of digital content creators, saying their livelihoods should be determined by law and not by “arbitrary algorithms”.
Raising the issue during Zero Hour in Rajya Sabha, the AAP MP from Punjab said millions of Indians have become digital content creators, functioning as educators, reviewers, satirists, entertainers, musicians and influencers.
“Whether it is their YouTube channel or Instagram page, it is not a source of entertainment for them. In fact, it is their source of income, their asset. It is the fruit of their hard work,” Chadha said.
He flagged the issue of fair use and arbitrary copyright strikes by digital platforms, saying content creators face the risk of losing their channels even when they repurpose copyrighted content for just 2-3 seconds for commentary, criticism, parody, educational or news reporting purposes.
“His years of hard work ends in a few minutes. Sir, livelihoods must be decided by law and not by arbitrary algorithms,” the AAP leader said.
Chadha clarified he was not against copyright holders and their rights need to be respected, but emphasised that fair use should not be equated with piracy.
“Fair use, where sometimes the purpose of using this content is incidental or transformative, must not be tantamount to wiping out somebody’s hard work,” he said, adding that innovation cannot grow in fear and creativity cannot survive under threat.
The AAP MP pointed out that India’s Copyright Act was enacted in 1957 when there was no internet, computers, digital content creators, YouTube or Instagram.
“This act lacks the very definition of digital creators. It talks about fair dealing, but it talks about fair dealing in the context of books, magazines, and journals,” he said.
Chadha made three key demands before the House.
First, he sought an amendment to the Copyright Act of 1957 to define digital fair use, including transformative use such as commentary, satire and critique, incidental use, proportionate use, educational use, public-interest use and non-commercial use.
Second, he demanded the introduction of the proportionality doctrine in copyright enforcement, arguing that if a video or sound is played in the background for a few seconds, it should not result in the complete takedown of a creator’s content.
His third demand was for mandatory due process before content is taken down.
