One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.
Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.
Sneha Iyer, a graphic designer based in Nagpur, posted a photograph of herself on her personal Instagram account in late February 2025. The image was casual, taken at a local café in Dharampeth, and captioned with a personal note about her weekend. She had set her account to public, as she sometimes does for creative posts. Within three weeks, a friend spotted the same photograph being used in a sponsored Instagram advertisement by a well-known Indian fashion and lifestyle retail brand, Reliance Trends. The photo had been cropped, lightly colour-graded, and placed alongside promotional text for a seasonal collection. Sneha had given no consent, signed no model release, and received no payment or communication whatsoever.
She first tried reaching out to the brand's social media handle directly. No response came for over a week. A generic customer care email got an automated reply. Frustrated and unsure whether the law could actually help her, she consulted a local advocate who handled general civil matters — but the approach suggested didn't account for the specific intersection of copyright, personality rights, and digital evidence preservation. The matter stalled. She then approached Advocate Sudhir Rao, whose familiarity with intellectual property and image rights disputes brought immediate clarity. A formal legal notice was drafted citing the Copyright Act, 1957 and invoking her personality rights. The advertisement was taken down within days of the notice being served, and a negotiated compensation was arrived at shortly thereafter. The specialised handling made a measurable difference.
Advice in Such Cases
Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation to come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think.
Preserve all digital evidence immediately: Before you send any message to the brand or post about it publicly, take screenshots of the advertisement as it appears, with timestamps, URLs, and any engagement metrics visible. Save the original post from your own profile too. Digital evidence can disappear quickly, and courts do require authenticated copies under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Don't post about it publicly before consulting your lawyer: Venting on social media about the brand may feel satisfying, but it can complicate your case. Statements made publicly can be used against your claim, especially if they're imprecise about the facts. Frankly, I've seen cases weaken significantly because the complainant posted an emotional thread before anyone had preserved a single screenshot properly.
Domain-specific experience matters here: Cases involving unauthorised use of photographs sit at the intersection of copyright law, personality rights, and digital evidence procedure. An advocate who regularly handles intellectual property or image rights matters will approach evidence, notices, and relief calculation very differently from a general practitioner. And that difference typically affects both speed and outcome.
Applicable Sections of Law
This is primarily a civil matter, though it carries overlapping intellectual property and privacy dimensions. The key legal provisions applicable are:
- Section 17 and Section 51, Copyright Act, 1957: The photographer of an image holds the copyright. Reproducing, publishing, or using a copyrighted photograph commercially without licence constitutes infringement under Section 51.
- Section 55, Copyright Act, 1957: Provides civil remedies for copyright infringement, including injunction, damages, and account of profits.
- Section 14, Copyright Act, 1957: Defines the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, including the right to communicate the work to the public.
- Right to Publicity and Personality Rights: Recognised judicially in India through cases such as ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, 2003 (Delhi HC) and Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, 2015 (Madras HC), protecting a person's identity and likeness from commercial exploitation without consent.
Jurisdiction — Where to File the Case
For copyright infringement, the suit may be filed before the District Court having jurisdiction, or before the High Court where the plaintiff resides or carries on business, as clarified under the Copyright Act, 1957. Since the advertisement was published on Instagram, a digital platform, the territorial jurisdiction can also attach to the place where the plaintiff accessed and first noticed the infringing content, as held in World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. v. Reshma Collection, 2014 (Delhi HC). Pecuniary jurisdiction depends on the quantum of damages claimed. Now, before you act, getting jurisdiction right at the outset is essential — a plaint filed before the wrong forum can cause significant delay and additional cost.
Limitation Period
Three years. That's your window.
Under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for infringement of copyright must be filed within three years from the date on which the infringement first occurred or was discovered. The clock typically starts from the date the photograph was used without permission in the advertisement. And here's the thing — if you delay in taking action, and the brand continues to use the image across multiple campaigns, each fresh use may create a fresh cause of action, but proving the original date of first use becomes harder. Missing limitation entirely is fatal to the case; condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies only in appeals, not original suits.
Interim Reliefs Available
This is where acting fast genuinely pays off. Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, you can seek a temporary injunction to immediately restrain the brand from continuing to use your photograph in any advertisement or promotional material. Courts in India have granted such injunctions relatively promptly in copyright infringement matters where prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm are demonstrated. Beyond injunction, you can seek an account of profits (requiring the brand to disclose revenue earned through campaigns using your image) and damages. In Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd., 2008 (Supreme Court), the Court affirmed that the purpose of copyright protection includes ensuring the rights-holder receives fair economic return.
If You Are the Victim
- Take screenshots of the infringing advertisement immediately, including the URL, date, and any visible engagement data. Store these in at least two separate locations.
- Do not delete or alter your original Instagram post — it establishes that you are the original creator and that the image predates the brand's use.
- Send a formal legal notice through a qualified advocate demanding that the advertisement be taken down and seeking compensation. A notice sent by an advocate carries significantly more weight than a personal message or email.
- If the brand ignores the notice, proceed to file a civil suit for copyright infringement and seek a temporary injunction under Order 39 CPC to stop further use while the case is pending.
- Keep records of any financial damage, such as lost commercial opportunities, modelling assignments foregone, or reputational impact, as these support the damages calculation.
Documents You Must Keep Ready
- Aadhaar card and PAN card (identity proof)
- Screenshots of the infringing advertisement with URL, timestamp, and platform details
- Original photograph file with metadata (EXIF data showing date, time, device)
- Your Instagram profile screenshots showing the original post and its date
- Any prior communications sent to the brand (emails, DMs, customer care replies)
- Evidence of your ownership of the photograph (camera roll, cloud backup with creation date)
- Any records showing the commercial value of the image (if you have worked as a content creator or model)
What Evidence Is Required?
- Original image file with EXIF metadata: This is primary evidence of creation and ownership. Courts treat metadata-bearing original files as strong proof of authorship.
- Screenshots of the advertisement: Authenticated copies, ideally with a hash value or notarized printout, to ensure admissibility under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- Proof of the photograph being published on your account before the brand used it: Cache data, web archive links, or timestamped social media records.
- Any communications between you and the brand: Emails, DMs, or absence of any licence agreement all form part of the evidentiary picture.
- Evidence of the commercial nature of the brand's use: Sponsored post tags, campaign disclosures, or product links visible in the advertisement.
- Expert valuation (if claiming substantial damages): A commercial photographer or digital marketing professional can provide an opinion on fair market value of the image for advertising use.
How Courts Typically Approach Such Cases
Indian courts, particularly the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court, have shown increasing sensitivity to digital copyright infringement and personality rights violations. Judges examine three things at the threshold stage: whether there is a prima facie case of infringement, whether the balance of convenience favours the plaintiff, and whether irreparable harm would result if the injunction is not granted. In practice, where the infringing use is clearly commercial and the plaintiff is identifiable in the image, courts haven't hesitated to grant ad-interim injunctions. But make no mistake — courts also look closely at evidence quality, so poor or unverified screenshots have caused applications to fail at interim stages.
Timeline of Legal Process
- Week 1-2: Consultation with advocate, evidence preservation, drafting and sending legal notice to the brand.
- Week 2-4: Brand responds (or fails to respond). If no satisfactory response, instructions to file suit.
- Month 1-2: Filing of civil suit; court issues summons to defendant; application for temporary injunction heard.
- Month 2-4: Defendant files reply to injunction application; court passes interim order (typically within 4-8 weeks of filing).
- Month 4-8: Written statement filed by defendant; issues framed by court.
- Month 8-18: Evidence stage — affidavits, cross-examination, production of documents.
- Month 18-30: Arguments before court.
- Month 30-42: Judgment and, if needed, execution proceedings or appeal before Division Bench / High Court.
Understanding the Costs
The total cost of a matter like this varies significantly from one case to the next — it depends on the complexity of the dispute, the forum involved, the number of hearings, and the specific facts of your situation. There is no single fixed figure that applies to everyone.
A professional advocate can give you an accurate estimate only after reviewing all your facts and documents in a consultation.
Can the Matter Be Settled Out of Court?
Yes, and honestly, in many image rights and copyright cases, settlement is the smarter path. Once a well-drafted legal notice is served, brands are often motivated to settle quickly to avoid the reputational cost of a public lawsuit. Mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be pursued after the suit is filed, and courts routinely refer parties to mediation centres attached to High Courts. A compromise deed recording the settlement, including the compensation amount and the brand's undertaking not to use the image further, can be made a rule of court for enforceability. Pre-litigation settlement is also possible if negotiations are handled firmly through counsel from the outset, which often saves both time and cost.
Common Mistakes People Make
- Delaying action: Every day the advertisement runs, the brand profits from unauthorised use. Delay also weakens your claim and edges you closer to limitation issues.
- Contacting the brand informally first without preserving evidence: Many people message the brand before taking screenshots, giving the brand time to take the ad down without any record existing of the infringing use.
- Posting about it on social media before consulting a lawyer: Public posts can be used to undermine your position, particularly if they contain statements that are legally imprecise or emotionally charged.
- Assuming public Instagram accounts have no copyright protection: Making your account public doesn't strip you of copyright. The law doesn't require secrecy for protection.
- Not obtaining a Section 65B certificate for digital evidence: Screenshots without proper certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are frequently challenged and sometimes excluded. This is a procedural step many litigants and even some advocates overlook.
- Engaging an advocate without experience in intellectual property or image rights matters: This specific category of case involves copyright law, personality rights jurisprudence, digital evidence procedures, and valuation of non-tangible harm. An advocate who handles these matters regularly will approach interim relief applications, evidence certification, and damages calculation differently from a general civil practitioner. That gap in domain familiarity can affect both the interim order stage and the eventual outcome.
Advocate Sudhir Rao, Supreme Court of India