Introduction

The legal word "copyright," often known as "author's right," refers to the ownership rights
that authors and artists have over their creative works. Books, music, paintings, sculptures,
films, computer programs, databases, ads, maps, and technical drawings are among the works
that fall under the purview of copyright protection.1

Copyright law, as its name implies, is a basic legal concept that maintains that if you create
something, you own it and have the exclusive right to determine what should happen to it.
The Copyright Act of 1957 governs copyright law in India. This copyright law serves
primarily two purposes: first, it protects the right of original expression for writers,
composers, artists, designers, and other creative professionals who risk financial ruin by
releasing their works to the public; second, it permits others to freely expand upon the
concepts and knowledge that a work conveys.

The copyright laws in India are similar to the global norms established by TRIPS. Following
amendments in 1999, 2002, and 2012, the (Indian) Copyright Act, of 1957 now completely
reflects the Universal Copyrights Convention and the Berne Convention for Protection of
Literary and Artistic Works, both of which India is a party to. India actively participates in
both the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). It is also a party to the
Geneva Convention for the Protection of Rights of Producers of Phonograms.2

The 6th Circuit and the 9th Circuit diverge on how to interpret the de minimis exemption
when it comes to safeguarding creative works of art i.e., musical work, particularly when it
comes to unlawfully sampling sound recordings that are protected by copyright. In
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, the 6th Circuit held that any unauthorized copy
of a sound recording, no matter how little, constituted to infringement. 3 In VMG Salsoul,
LLC v. Ciccone, on the other hand, the 9th Circuit upheld earlier composition-related
decisions by concluding that allegations of copyright infringement indeed fall within the de
minimis exemption. This disparity calls for a clarification ruling from the Supreme Court or a

1
"Copyright" WIPO <https://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/#:~:text=Copyright%20(or%20author's%20right)
%20is,%2C%20maps%2C%20and%20technical%20drawings> accessed 23 February 2024
2
https://rgu-website.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/06124952/Copyright-Study-
Material.pdf
3
https://www.theiplawblog.com/2016/06/articles/copyright-law/ninth-circuit-rejects-current-status-of-music-
sampling-copyright-infringement-and-sets-circuit-split-for/
solution through subsequent legislation to create consistent standards throughout the whole
country.4

In order to resolve the differences between the 6th and 9th Circuits concerning the protection
of musical works, it is essential to take into account the intent behind copyright legislation.
By encouraging authors to produce unique works and fairly and reasonably balancing the
interests of copyright holders and artists, copyright law seeks to advance science and useful
art. According to a legal doctrine known as the de minimis exemption, the use of copyrighted
material can take place without the owner's consent if the use is so minimal as to not violate
the rights of the owner. 5

the de minimis test and its application in copyright law

The legal principle known as the "de minimis test" enables the use of protected material
without authorization in situations where the usage is too minimal and inconsequential to
cause the copyright owners harm. It offers a flexible framework for striking a balance
between the need to prevent stifling innovation and creativity and the preservation of creative
works.6

The pragmatic Approach of the De Minimis Test considers the Size of the use and the level
of harm it causes to the copyright owner, the Cost of adjudication versus the benefits derived
from the use, the Intent of the user, and the Effect on third parties.7

Case Study: Warner Brothers v. American Broadcasting Companies

The court determined that the use of a few seconds of a copyrighted film was de minimis,
emphasizing that the use was incidental and did not diminish the value of the copyrighted
work.

4
"Resolving a Copyright Law Circuit Split: The Importance of a De Minimis Exception for Sampled Sound
Recordings" 62 St. Louis U. L. Rev. 461
<https://www.slu.edu/law/law-journal/pdfs/issues-archive/v62-no2/claire_mispagel_note.pdf> Accessed 23
February 2024
5
"Understanding Copyright and Related Rights" WIPO
(2016)<https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_909_2016.pdf> Accessed 23 February 2024
6
Sunray, Eric. "Sounds of Science: Copyright Infringement in AI Music Generator Outputs" (2021) 29/2 Cath.
U. J. Law & Tech. <https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=jlt> Accessed
February 23, 2024.
7
Sunray, Eric. "Sounds of Science: Copyright Infringement in AI Music Generator Outputs" (2021) 29/2 Cath.
U. J. Law & Tech. <https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=jlt> Accessed
February 23, 2024.
The Bright-Line Test

A bright-line test is a simple, straightforward rule that assists in the resolution of legal
disputes by courts without the need for in-depth analysis or subjective judgment. Bright-line
tests in copyright law seek to make the application of the law less complicated and
ambiguous, which makes court rulings more predictable and consistent.

This method gives copyright proprietors the most protection possible by classifying each
unlawful use of protected content as infringement, regardless of its nature or importance.8

Case Study: The idea-expression dichotomy, which holds that copyright protection only
extends to the representation of an idea rather than the underlying concepts themselves, is a
well-known example of a bright-line test in copyright law. 9 A further instance is the safe
harbor clauses of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which specify
circumstances in which internet service providers are exempt from liability for user-initiated
copyright infringements.

The de minimis theory brought up by the 6th Circuit which strikes a suitable balance between
safeguarding intellectual property and encouraging creation. This method is considered
to more accurately represent the variation included in contemporary music production
methods when sampling and remixing are standard procedures. Strict adherence to the bright-
line guideline could hamper originality and deter the creative use of existing materials.
Furthermore, when used carefully, the de minimis concept can still offer rightsholders
adequate protection while guaranteeing that only genuinely insignificant samples are exempt
from responsibility.

The De Minimis Test could lead to promote creativity and Innovation and result in Avoiding
Overburdening the Legal System. Furthermore, it Encourages Fair Use and Transformative
Work and will bring Consistency with International Norms that can play a significant role in
safeguarding the infringement of copyright.

The de minimis test promotes a condition that is favorable to creativity and innovation by
permitting accidental or minor usage of copyrighted content. It avoids the potential chilling
impact that overly stringent copyright enforcement may have on the production of new
8
Fowles, John B. "The Utility of a Bright-line Rule in Copyright Law: Freeing Judges from Aesthetic
Controversy and Conceptual Separability in Leicester v. Warner Bros." (2005) UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 12(2)
<https://escholarship.org/uc/item/15d2w2gm> Accessed 23 February 2024
9
Fowles, John B. "The Utility of a Bright-line Rule in Copyright Law: Freeing Judges from Aesthetic
Controversy and Conceptual Separability in Leicester v. Warner Bros." (2005) UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 12(2)
<https://escholarship.org/uc/item/15d2w2gm> Accessed 23 February 2024
works. The de minimis test permits the accidental integration of copyrighted information,
which supports the development of transformative works and enhances the fair use concept. It
acknowledges that transformative applications enhance the landscape of culture and the arts
without unnecessarily infringing upon copyright holders' rights.10

On the other hand, the Bright-Line Test provides several challenges and criticisms that hinder
creativity and innovation. The bright-line test could go too far, which might restrict
acceptable uses of copyrighted content and hamper the creation of new works. Due to its
severe implementation, which places excessive limitations on copied material and accidental
usage, it may restrict originality and creativity.

The bright-line method, in contrast to the de minimis rule, provides no flexibility in allowing
accidental or modest usage of copyrighted content. Unjust outcomes may result from this
rigidity's failure to sufficiently take into consideration context-specific characteristics or the
transformational nature of some works. Additionally, the public interest and fair use may
conflict with the bright line. The bright-line test discourages socially beneficial uses of
copyrighted content, such as criticism, commentary, and education, which are essential in
developing nations and may be in contrast with the public interest and fair use principles.
Strict enforcement of copyright laws may hinder the free exchange of ideas and information,
which would be detrimental to the main goals of copyright legislation.

Therefore from the above analysis it is conferred that Copyright law has two primary roles
i.e., it promotes the public interest by sharing information, encouraging innovation, and
allowing the flow of ideas. Further, it also play a significant role in incentivizes creativity by
providing authors exclusive rights, and promoting cultural creation and expenditure. It takes a
sophisticated strategy to strike a balance between these goals, one that recognizes the value of
encouraging innovation and access while also rewarding invention.

In conclusion, by permitting unintentional and small uses of copyrighted information, the de

10
Corrado, Sean M. "Care for a Sample? De Minimis, Fair Use, Blockchain, and an Approach to an Affordable
Music Sampling System for Independent Artists" (2019) 29 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 1.
<https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1706&context=iplj>Accessed on 23 February 2024