Delhi High Court Scrutinizes Instagram Remix in Copyright Lawsuit

The Delhi High Court is hearing a copyright lawsuit filed by educator Vikas Divyakirti against Meta Platforms, alleging that Instagram's Remix feature facilitates the misuse of his lectures to damage his reputation. Divyakirti, founder of the Drishti IAS coaching centre, claims fake profiles, deepfakes, and edited clips are being used to falsely portray him as 'Hindu-phobic and anti-Brahmin' and to show him endorsing betting platforms.

Senior Advocate Diya Kapur, representing Divyakirti, categorized the offending content. The court ordered the removal or disabling of links in three categories: fake profiles and channels on YouTube and Instagram, deepfake videos, and full reposts of his lectures with only a caption added. It held back on a fourth category involving lecture clips with added captions falsely attributing statements to him, noting this material might qualify as criticism under copyright law. Divyakirti seeks protection for his copyright, moral rights, and personality rights.

Judicial concerns over tool's potential for misuse

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, hearing the case on September 29, issued a stark warning about the Remix feature's design. He described it as enabling a user to 'pick up a video, paste it and make it your own video' and argued Meta hands such tools to users it cannot trace. The judge compared the feature to giving a gun to anyone without due process, stating it can 'kill your reputation'. He later added, "You are allowing manipulation. It is a tool for copyright violation. Does your platform permit this? It is proof of copyright violation."

The court noted the system inherently rewards the first complainant, as the person facing a content strike must handle a full process to restore it. Justice Bhambhani stated the feature enables manipulation and is worse than a gun for regulation, calling it a tool given to a ghost.

Platform defences and legal objections raised

Meta's counsel, Advocate Varun Pathak, challenged the lawsuit on multiple fronts. He initially said he needed to verify the existence of the Remix feature and argued any platform allowing downloads could be similarly misused, with liability resting with users, not the platform. Pathak objected on grounds of wrong forum, stating the case should be under the IT Act and IT Rules, and wrong defendant, as uploaders should be targeted. He also warned that an automated system for total monitoring would resemble China's approach.

Kapur rejected the forum objection, calling the IT Act forums overburdened and inefficient, and emphasized she was claiming constitutional and proprietary rights directly in court. The court did not rule on this objection but noted it would need to be considered.

Court orders and unresolved questions

The court directed platforms to share basic subscriber information and IP logs of the uploaders. Kapur accused platforms of suspending accounts over copyright complaints without verifying their genuineness, saying they are 'playing God'. The judge questioned the practicality of enforcing small decrees, saying one would be 'running in circles'.

The court declined to add Divyakirti's case to other personality rights suits filed by celebrities. It referenced past copyright cases where courts protected the use of clips for criticism or review. The legal framework allows fair dealing for criticism, review, or reporting current events, with no set time limit; each case is decided on its facts.

Beyond Instagram, the brief noted YouTube retired its video response feature in 2013, and recent actions by entities like ANI and the BCCI against unauthorized use of content. Open questions remain about where legitimate criticism ends and harmful distortion begins, and who should decide when a complaint is made. The court will need to consider Meta's forum objection under the IT Act and IT Rules before proceeding further.