You have just uploaded your latest podcast episode or a high-production video essay. You spent weeks on the research and the edit. Within two hours you get a notification that stops you cold: a copyright strike. Someone you have never heard of is claiming they own your content.
Your video is blocked, your channel is at risk, and your revenue is frozen. You are the victim of a false claim — but the platform is treating you like the infringer.
This is a growing problem. According to the FICCI-EY 2026 report, India now has 2 to 2.5 million active digital creators, and digital media crossed INR 1 trillion in 2025. As the stakes for creative work grow, so does the incentive for bad actors to use false claims to harass rivals or hijack ad revenue from content they did not make.
The core answer: The law actually protects you against false and groundless claims. You have a specific process to fight back, and your proof of original creation is your most powerful tool.
The Legal Reality: Section 60 and Groundless Threats
The Copyright Act 1957 is not just about stopping thieves — it also stops bullies.
Section 51 defines infringement. A person making a copyright claim must actually hold the rights. If they do not, their claim is a wrongful interference with your work and your income.
Section 60 is your most powerful tool in this situation. It allows you to take legal action against anyone who makes a groundless threat of copyright proceedings. If someone files a false takedown notice without actually owning the rights, you can sue them for an injunction and damages. Most bad actors do not know this section exists. Mentioning it in your response to a false claimant frequently ends the matter immediately.
Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act 2000 cover identity theft and cheating by impersonation. If someone has falsely claimed to be a rights holder — posing as a label, an agency, or another creator — this can attract criminal liability.
How to Use the Counter-Notice
Under Rule 3 of the IT Rules 2021, when you receive a copyright claim you have the right to file a counter-notification. Most creators write “this is my work, please restore it” — and that almost always fails.
A counter-notice that works looks different. It says: “I am the original author of this work. I have a verified, third-party record of this creation dated [date], which predates the claimant’s alleged rights. I formally dispute this claim and request immediate restoration of the content.”
When your original files are permanently recorded on NAK-ID, your counter-notice is not just a request — it is a legal assertion backed by a tamperproof timeline. Under Section 63 of the BSA 2023, this kind of integrity record is exactly what establishes your position. Once a platform receives a valid, documented counter-notice, they typically restore the content within their stated review window — usually 10 to 14 business days — unless the claimant escalates to an actual court filing. Most bad actors do not, because doing so requires real legal action with real costs and real exposure to a Section 60 counter-suit.
Creator’s Checklist
- Do not retaliate with a counter-claim. Filing a false claim in return makes you look like the aggressor in the eyes of the platform.
- Verify the claimant. Check who actually filed the claim. Is it a legitimate company with a verifiable identity, or a random account? This tells you whether you are dealing with a mistake or a malicious attack.
- File a formal counter-notice with your proof. Use the platform’s official legal form. Reference your timestamped record of creation and the date it was secured.
- Mention Section 60. In any written communication with the claimant, state clearly that under Section 60 of the Copyright Act 1957, you reserve the right to seek legal remedies for groundless threats. This single sentence ends most false claims.
Your IP deserves a paper trail. Register your work on NAK-ID — it’s free to start.
Legal References
- Copyright Act 1957 — Section 51 (infringement), Section 60 (remedy against groundless threats of legal proceedings)
- Information Technology Rules 2021 — Rule 3 (intermediary obligations and counter-notification process)
- Information Technology Act 2000 — Sections 66C and 66D (identity theft and cheating by impersonation)
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023 — Section 63 (integrity of electronic records)
- FICCI-EY Media & Entertainment Report 2026 — 2 to 2.5 million active digital creators; digital media crossed INR 1 trillion in 2025