Social media has changed the way opinions are expressed. Today, anyone with a phone and an internet connection can review, react to or criticise content shared by others. Videos, reels, podcasts and posts are constantly discussed, analysed and, at times, strongly criticised by fellow creators.
In many cases, this culture of commentary plays a useful role. It encourages discussion, accountability and engagement with creative work. Indian copyright law recognises this value and allows limited use of copyrighted material for purposes such as criticism and review.
At the same time, recent trends show a noticeable shift. What begins as commentary on content often moves towards repeated targeting of the individual behind it. When that happens, criticism starts raising legal concerns of a different kind, especially when it turns personal.
Indian copyright law does not prohibit all unauthorised use of protected works. The Copyright Act, 1957 recognises certain exceptions where such use does not amount to infringement. One such exception is fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review.
The intention behind this exception is straightforward. Copyright law is not meant to silence discussion or prevent honest evaluation of creative work. But fair dealing is not without limits. Courts in India have consistently held that it must be assessed in context, taking into account the purpose of the use, the extent of the material used and its effect on the original work.
Problems arise when the focus of criticism shifts away from the work itself. Repeated ridicule, personal remarks or content designed to humiliate a creator may no longer fall within the protective scope of fair dealing. At that stage, the issue moves beyond copyright and enters the domain of personal rights.
Indian law recognises the right to reputation, dignity and privacy. These rights do not disappear merely because a person is active on social media or has a public following. While public figures may face greater scrutiny, this does not justify sustained personal attacks presented as review or commentary.
“Criticism engages with content. Harassment targets individuals.”
This distinction is also reflected in the rules enforced by social media platforms. Platforms such as Instagram and YouTube permit criticism and commentary but place clear restrictions on bullying, abusive behaviour and repeated targeting. As a result, content may comply with copyright exceptions and still be removed for violating community standards.
Alongside platform rules, online conduct in India is governed by the Information Technology Act and the Rules framed under it. These laws require intermediaries to act against unlawful or harmful content once it is brought to their notice. Courts have also clarified that freedom of expression does not extend to conduct that infringes upon the rights of others.
Similar concerns can be seen globally. Jurisdictions such as Canada and the United States allow criticism under fair dealing or fair use principles but continue to examine fairness, intent and proportionality. In the UAE, online speech is regulated more strictly, with serious consequences for abusive or defamatory conduct.
Across jurisdictions, the underlying principle remains consistent. “Copyright exceptions are meant to protect expression, not to justify excess.”
As online commentary continues to grow, creators and businesses alike must remain conscious of this boundary. The law permits criticism but also draws a clear line when commentary stops being about the work and begins to cause harm to the individual behind it.
© 2026 Business Consultant & Law Firm - Legacy Partners. All Rights Reserved.
Designed by Nuewelle Digital Solutions LLP
Legacy Partners
We typically reply in a few minutes
