Section 65B explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 65B punishes two acts done knowingly: removing or altering rights management information without authority, and distributing, importing for distribution, broadcasting or communicating to the public copies of a work or performance while knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority. The punishment is imprisonment up to two years and liability to fine, and the owner may also use the civil remedies of Chapter XII. If your business publishes images, music or documents with embedded credit or licence data, a legal consultation can help you protect and enforce it.
Any person who knowingly (i) removes or alters any rights management information without authority, or (ii) distributes, imports for distribution, broadcasts or communicates to the public, without authority, copies of any work or performance knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority, is punishable with imprisonment up to two years and liability to fine. The owner may also use civil remedies under Chapter XII where the information has been tampered with.
Where it comes from
Section 65B was inserted by Act 27 of 2012 (w.e.f. 21-6-2012), as the footnote states. The text consulted does not contain a definition of "rights management information"; this article gives none. If you need the meaning, check the official text of section 2 as amended.
The two offences
The section begins: "Any person, who knowingly,—".
| Clause | Act | Notes from the text |
|---|---|---|
| (i) | Removes or alters any rights management information without authority | Not limited to electronic information |
| (ii) | Distributes, imports for distribution, broadcasts or communicates to the public, without authority, copies of any work or performance, knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority | Concerns later dealing in copies; the information must be electronic |
Points from the wording:
- "Knowingly" governs both clauses. Clause (ii) also repeats "knowing that", so awareness that the information was removed or altered is central.
- "Without authority" appears in both clauses. Removal or alteration with the owner's authority is outside the section.
- Clause (ii) covers work or performance, so performers' rights are within it; section 39A also applies section 65B to broadcast reproduction right and performer's right, see sections 39 and 39A.
Punishment
"Shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine." No minimum term and no fine amount is given.
The proviso: civil remedies
"Provided that if the rights management information has been tampered with in any work, the owner of copyright in such work may also avail of civil remedies provided under Chapter XII against the persons indulging in such acts."
So the owner is not limited to the criminal route. Chapter XII's remedies (injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise) are set out in sections 54 and 55; jurisdiction is in section 62. The proviso speaks of the "owner of copyright in such work"; the text is silent on whether a performer can use the proviso for a performance.
Example. Reema Joshi, a photographer, embeds her name and licence terms in the metadata of her photographs. A website operator, Pixel Hub, strips the metadata and posts the photographs. If Pixel Hub knowingly removed the information without authority, clause (i) applies. If another site later distributes the stripped copies knowing the electronic information had been removed without authority, clause (ii) applies to it. Reema may also sue under Chapter XII. For photographs generally, see copyright in photographs.
Sections 65A and 65B side by side
| 65A | 65B | |
|---|---|---|
| Subject | Technological measures | Rights management information |
| Offender's state of mind | Intention of infringing | Knowingly |
| Exceptions in the section | Seven listed in sub-section (2) | None listed |
| Penalty | Up to two years, liable to fine | Up to two years, liable to fine |
| Civil remedy mentioned | No | Yes, Chapter XII |
See section 65A.
What the section does not say
- It does not list the types of information that count.
- It does not say how "authority" is given or proved.
- It does not mention any exception for fair dealing; for section 52, see exceptions to infringement.
- It does not state who tries the offence; see sections 69 and 70.
Need help protecting credits and licence data?
If someone has stripped credits or licence information from your work, or you want to put controls in place, our legal consultation service can review the facts and the remedies under section 65B and Chapter XII.
Key takeaways
- Two knowing acts: removing or altering rights management information without authority, and dealing in copies knowing electronic information was removed or altered.
- Up to two years' imprisonment and liability to fine.
- The owner may also use civil remedies under Chapter XII.
- The text consulted gives no definition of the term.
Read next
- Section 65A: protection of technological measures
- Sections 67–68A: false entries, false statements and section 52A penalty
- Copyright in photographs: ownership and duration
- Copyright infringement on social media: legal remedies
Disclaimer: Based on the Copyright Act, 1957 as amended up to 2012, read with the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Acts of 2023 and 2026, as consulted on 1 October 2026. Forms, fees and procedure are set by the Copyright Rules, 2013 as amended from time to time. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.