Licensing Digital Content to OTT Platforms in India: Navigating IP & Regulatory Risks

Introduction

A tectonic shift, one that has brought the emergence of a new ecosystem in the Indian media over the past decade, is none other than the development of over-the-top or OTT platforms. These include Netflix, Zee5, Sony Liv, Amazon Prime Video, JioHotstar, Hulu and many more. The platforms are designed to offer a wide range of streaming content, that is content on-demand, via the internet, disrupting the traditional cable and dish-tv services.^[1] Though now well-established, the ecosystem is an experimental space for new and varied entertainment content, which has brought with it a boost of creative freedom and increased legal exposure.^[2] The Indian markets, characterized by volatile political sentiment and strong social pluralism, are flooded with multifaceted risks of content publication.

Disintegrating the Licensing Framework of OTT Content

At the centre of any OTT content broadcasting lies a licensing agreement, which provides legal backing to stream, distribute, and modify content, in the form of rights granted by content creators to streaming platforms. Such grant of permission is akin to a license to a particular set of content to the platform, and not a transfer of ownership of the said content. The grant includes a pre-defined bundle of rights to access the content in specified ways for fixed periods and in particular jurisdictions only.^[3] This OTT licensing is not a singular transfer or a particular IP right. It is a bundle of rights, with each one defined in a clear and specific manner, ensuring legal security.

Every piece of content, be it a movie or a series, contains numerous individually owned IP components, from screenplay to the rights to the underlying plot, music compositions, character features and brand presence.^[4] Each element is, ideally, marked by copyright, trademark or design protection under the law. The licensing parties must hold clear titles to all the rights, without which the OTT platform is exposed to legal consequences under the Indian laws. Amidst this OTT revolution, platforms demand ‘exclusive’ streaming rights and sublicensing rights, which include dubbing and remaking the content into regional languages.^[5] There is a necessity for watertight licensing to prevent the burden of costly and prolonged litigation.

IP Ownership and Risks Involved

A key aspect of every IP ownership, though often ignored in licensing, is the establishment of a crystal-clear chain-of-title.^[6] This demonstrates the legal ownership of all the pertinent rights by the producer of the content, preventing any conflicts with third-parties claiming ownership of certain parts. With copyright registration being optional in India, the protection arises automatically once the work is created.^[7] Although registration is not mandatory, it is often recommended as the registration acts as prima facie proof of ownership, in the case of a lawsuit filed to enforce copyright and prevent infringement.

Adaptations, particularly, are complicated forms of content licensing. In this scenario, production companies base their movie or series on a pre-existing novel, theatre production or poem. In order to do the same legally, the company requires the rights to such original work. The company creates a screenplay, which can be characterized as original, but the underlying story is an adaptation of someone else’s original work, subjecting it to copyright laws.^[8] The transfer and access of these rights must be lawfully and accurately acquired to avoid hindrances.

An instance of a legal battle that arose from such hindrances was in the case of Mannu Bhandari v Kala Vikas Motion Pictures.^[9] The landmark case presents a thoughtful interpretation of authorship and art thus created, along with delving into the scope of Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.^[10] The case involved novelist Mannu Bhandari, who claimed that the film adaptation of her novel, Aap Ka Bunty, had departed from the original, and in the process, distorted it, making it offensive and vulgar, trivializing the social sensitivities she had portrayed. The Delhi High Court detailed how creative expression is not a mere commodity open to exploitation once an agreement is signed.

The art must be recognized by law to protect the connection with the original presentation of the views by the author, even after commercial rights are assigned to the work. The judgement affirms the moral rights provided by Section 57, as preserving the dignity of the author by protecting the work from being mutilated. The Court focused on the fact that an adaptation that alters the spirit of a work equals infringement of the author’s integrity and standing. Section 57 goes on to protect moral rights, which is attribution and integrity of the work. Moral rights are significant in content production as OTT platforms looking to modify or initiate cuts, there are chances that the original author could claim destruction of their work. Therefore, artistic expression requires “a healthy environment and adequate protection,” with the case serving as a cue to intellectual property risks not being restricted to ownership.^[11]

Despite the case being from the 1970s, it remains extremely relevant in the present context of OTT licensing. It demonstrates how adaptation rights need to be secured explicitly, along with other rights, including those to the underlying story, as each element of ownership is at play in the aforesaid context, requiring more than mere royalty agreements. These derivative works, as adaptations or reinterpretations or sequels and prequels, OTT titles need separate rights, more than reliance on just “public domain” status.^[12] The same is analogous to adaptation of Mahabharata. The story is abundantly available in public domain, but the dramatization of it is protected by the original television series created in the 1990s.^[13] Any OTT platform looking to host a version of the same today requires licensing deals to adapt. It is the expression that is protected, in the form of specific dialogues, sequences or visual effects.

Piracy has been a threat to the entertainment industry with the development of technology, but the threat majorly looms over the OTT industry, given the staggering Rs. 8,700 crore of losses attributable to illegally accessed OTT content.^[14] Despite piracy units like Maharashtra Cyber Digital Crime Unit (MCDCU) proactively working to take down websites giving access to pirated content, the increasing threats originate from various torrent sites, unauthorized cloning of OTT accounts, and AI-aided piracy.^[15] It is necessary that the licensing deals between OTT platforms, content creators and production houses focus on anti-piracy measures such as digital watermarking, geo-blocking and stringent actions for unauthorized access.

Infringement Liability: From Copyright to IT Laws

Under the Copyright Act, Section 51 provides for civil liability to the copyright owners who can claim injunctions, damages or even a share in profits.^[16] Streaming copyrighted content without proper rights to public dissemination is akin to publishing the said content by infringing on the original creator’s right. The liabilities, however, are not restricted to civil ones. Infringement can attract criminal liability under Section 63 and 63A, which include prison terms for deliberate infringement, along with sharing protected content to private subscribers.^[17]

Another significant layer of regulation available in India is the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.^[18] These Rules have brought a three-tier grievance-redressal mechanism in addition to content classification based on age and access control. These also add a code of ethics to be followed by digital publishers, which includes OTT platforms. These do not directly regulate copyrights or license deals, but they structure host platform liability through post-licensing obligations, such as labelling content that contains sexual acts, alcohol usage etc. The Rules also classify the platforms as ‘digital publishers’ instead of passive intermediaries, which increases the exposure they have to legal complaints.

Conclusion

As the digital content industry in India grows at the speed it has expanded since the lockdown, the licensing of digital content to OTT platforms has become a necessity in the legal minefield. The seemingly simple transaction of content producers providing access to streaming platforms in exchange for fees and royalties has turned out to be a complex web of intellectual property rights and obligations. Licensing has shifted from a back-end formality to a front-line safeguard for all parties involved in the streaming services industry. These stand as the barrier from scrutiny in Indian courts. The evolving OTT ecosystem, in India, requires an efficient long-standing infrastructure for tacking of the rights, creation of standard form of licensing models, and risk analysis in content acquisition.

Author: Eeshna Shukla, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to [email protected] or at IIPRD. 

[1] Vasudha Mukherjee, ‘Over 500K Cable TV Jobs Lost in India as OT Eats into Market’ (Business Standard, 10 June 2025) < https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/india-cable-tv-industry-shrinking-job-revenue-loss-report-125061000270_1.html>.

[2] Sahir Raza, ‘Best of Both Sides: OTT Allows Experimentation Sans Restriction That Accompany Cinema, TV’ (Indian Express, 23 May 2025) < https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/best-of-both-sides-ott-allows-experimentation-sans-restrictions-that-accompany-cinema-tv-10022918/>.

[3] ‘What is Content Licensing?: The Ultimate Guide’ (NewYorkTimes) < https://nytlicensing.com/latest/our-brand/what-is-content-licensing/>.

[4] Cathy Jewell, ‘From Script to Screen: What Role for Intellectual Property’ (WIPO) < https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/stories/ip_and_film.html>.

[5] Shrimant Singh and Samridh Ahuja, ‘Evolution of IP Laws in OTT Platforms in India’ (LiveLaw, 30 July 2022) < https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/ip-laws-ott-platforms-amazon-prime-netflix-hotstar-information-technology-act-sa-law-offices-205217>.

[6] Jeanne Hamburg, ‘The Importance of Clean Chain of Title in Buying, Selling or Licensing Trademarks and Copyrights’ (NorrisMcLaughlin) < https://norrismclaughlin.com/bwob/intellectual-property/importance-clean-chain-title-buying-selling-licensing-trademarks-copyrights/>.

[7] Archana Balasubramanian and Avantika Singh, ‘Is Copyright Registration Mandatory?’ (Mondaq, 11 May 2022) < https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1192016/is-copyright-registration-mandatory>.

[8] Jewell (n 4).

[9] Mannu Bhandari v Kala Vikas Motion Pictures AIR 1987 Delhi 13.

[10] Copyright Act, 1957, s 57.

[11] ibid.

[12] Rich Stim, ‘Welcome to the Public Domain’(Standford Libraries) < https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/ >.

[13] India TV Entertainment Desk, ‘Mahabharata Finds an OTT Home on Disney+ Hotstar, Show Unveiled Globally’ (IndiaTV News, 10 September 2022) < https://www.indiatvnews.com/entertainment/ott/mahabharata-finds-an-ott-home-on-disney-hotstar-show-unveiled-globally-2022-09-10-806987 >.

[14] ‘The Rs. 22,400 Crore Leak: How Piracy Drains India’s Film Industry’ (Mint, 18 March 2025) < https://www.livemint.com/industry/media/music-industry-films-movies-ott-piracy-video-content-struggle-audio-platforms-netflix-hotstar-prime-video-jio-11742278991056.html >.

[15] Arpan Banerjee and Neil Gane, ‘Copyright Piracy and Cybercrime: Enforcement Challenges in India’ (WIPO, 13 December 2022) < https://www.wipo.int/web/wipo-magazine/articles/copyright-piracy-and-cybercrime-enforcement-challenges-in-india-42977 >.

[16] Copyright Act, 1957, s 51.

[17] Copyright Act, 1957, s 63, 63A.

[18] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.