When Art Becomes Design: Understanding Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act

When does an artistic work stop being protected as copyright and start being treated as an industrial design? This question has become increasingly important for businesses in fashion, textiles, jewellery, product design, architecture and technology, where creative works are often commercially applied to products at scale.

This overlap in Indian law has been addressed by the intersection of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Designs Act, 2000.

While copyright safeguards original artistic expression, design law protects the visual features of articles manufactured through an industrial process. The overlap between these two becomes critical when drawings, patterns, sketches, or other artistic works are used for mass production..

Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act occupies a central position in this framework. It provides that where a work is capable of registration as a design under the Designs Act, but has not been registered, copyright protection ceases once it has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process. The provision reflects a legislative attempt to strike a balance between encouraging artistic creativity and preventing the prolonged monopolisation of industrial designs.

Judicial decisions, including Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co.[1], Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd.,[2] Rajesh Masrani v. Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd.[3], Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. v. Aarya 24 KT[4], and the recent Supreme Court ruling in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd.[5], have clarified how this boundary is to be drawn.

Copyright Versus Design: The Statutory Divide

It is crucial to differentiate between “artistic work copyright” and “design” before examining Section 15(2).

Under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, artistic works include paintings, drawings, sculptures, and photographs, which are protected for their originality. An artistic work can be a standalone creation and not necessarily intended for industrial application and enjoys protection for a significant period (generally, life of the creator/ author plus 60 years).

Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, defines design as features of shape, configuration, pattern, or composition applied to an article of commerce by an industrial process, which are judged solely by the eye. Novel designs are protected under the Designs Act but for a shorter period (15 years).

The difficulty arises when the same work has both artistic and commercial value. A drawing or pattern may begin as an artistic work in which copyright comes to subsist upon its creation, but once it is applied to commercial products and reproduced through an industrial process, it may enter the domain of design law. The artistic work copyright is lost when the work is reproduced by an industrial process for 50 times or more. On the other hand, the design registration opportunity for the design is lost as well, as the work does not remain novel anymore.

Therefore, if the design is capable of registration under the Designs Act (i.e., applied to a commercial product) and is planned to undergo mass industrial production, it must be registered as a design under the Designs Act to maintain protection beyond a limited number of reproductions.

Section 15(2) acts as a statutory bridge between copyright and design protection. It does not say that every artistic work used in commerce automatically loses copyright protection. It promotes timely design registration and prevents indefinite control over designs that are commercially exploited at scale.

This rule reflects an important policy choice from the legislators. Industrial designs are meant to receive protection under the Designs Act, not through the longer monopoly available under Copyright Law.

Judicial Tests: The Evolution of Legal Principles

The Microfibres case[6] is essential to comprehending how Section 15(2) should be interpreted. The Delhi High Court examined whether upholstery fabric patterns could continue to receive copyright protection after being industrially reproduced. The Court held that fabric designs that were intended for mass production, were capable of registration under the Designs Act. Since they had not been registered and had been reproduced more than fifty times, copyright protection was no longer available to the artistic fabric patterns under Section 15(2).

According to Section 15, the court noted, copyright protection ends if a design that could be registered under the Designs Act is applied to more than 50 items through an industrial process but is not. The Court emphasized that the purpose of this clause was to avoid dual protection under design legislation and copyright.

The Court also observed that in spite of the designs’ eligibility for such protection, Microfibres Inc. had not attempted to register them under the Designs Act at the pertinent time. They had indeed registered their designs in England, but not in India at the opportune time, the Court pointed out. Hence, they were unable to assert their exclusive rights under the Designs Act since they had not registered in India.

The same approach was followed in the case of Ritika (P) Ltd[7], where the plaintiff claimed copyright in fashion designs used for garments. The Court held that once such designs were applied to garments through an industrial process more than fifty times, and were not registered under the Designs Act, copyright protection could not be claimed.

However, in the case of Rajesh Masrani v. Tahiliani Design (P) Ltd[8], Tahiliani Design requested an injunction against the defendant for suspected infringement and claimed copyright protection for fashion sketches. The Court decided in favour of Tahiliani Design, concluding that the sketches met the requirements of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act as artistic works.

The Court determined that the copyright was still in effect as long as the designs had not been used more than 50 times in an industrial process. In this instance, artistic creations and designs were differentiated according to their industrial use. The Court made it clear that an artistic work would remain protected by copyright until it exceeded the 50-times threshold for industrial application, at which point Section 15(2) would take effect.

Notably, in the case of Pranda Jewelry (P) Ltd. v. Aarya 24 KT,[9], the Bombay High Court concentrated on how the Designs Act and the Copyright Act came into play in this case. The Court noted that the Designs Act protects designs that are applied to objects for industrial reasons and have aesthetic appeal. Nonetheless, the Court acknowledged that the work has greater protection if it meets the requirements of the Copyright Act as an “original artistic work” because copyright grants exclusive rights that endure for a considerably longer time.

The Court reaffirmed that once an artistic creation is applied to an article intended for commercial or industrial reproduction, it enters the domain of design law and is consequently governed by the Designs Act. In such circumstances, protection is available only for the statutory term prescribed under the Designs Act, namely ten (10) years, extendable by a further five (5) years. The Court further observed that artistic works created solely for aesthetic appreciation, continue to enjoy the broader and longer-lasting protection afforded by copyright law. The Court observed that although artistic works and designs may overlap in certain circumstances, the determining factor is the dominant purpose of the work.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd.[10] adds an important modern layer to this analysis. The Court clarified that the applicability of Section 15(2) requires a careful enquiry into whether the work is an artistic work or a design capable of registration, and whether functional utility dominates over visual appeal. This is particularly significant for engineering drawings, product designs and technical works, where functionality and aesthetics may overlap.

Principles Emerging from Judicial Decisions

The foregoing decisions collectively establish a comprehensive judicial interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, which regulates the intersection between copyright and design protection in the context of commercial purposes and industrial application. The key principles are:

While original artistic works are protected under copyright law, their legal character may change when they are applied to articles through an industrial process. In such circumstances, the work may acquire the attributes of a design and fall within the regulatory framework of the Designs Act.

Section 15(2) provides for a statutory threshold whereby copyright protection ceases once a design capable of registration under the Designs Act is reproduced more than fifty times through an industrial process, unless it has been duly registered as a design. This provision serves as a clear demarcation between artistic creations and industrially exploited designs.

The underlying objective of Section 15(2) is to prevent the extension of long-term copyright monopolies to subject matter that is essentially industrial in nature and brings commercial value to its creators. By directing such works towards the design registration regime, the legislature ensures that commercially valuable designs receive an appropriate but time-bound form of protection, thereby fostering both innovation and market competition.

The law distinguishes between artistic works and industrial designs in terms of the duration of protection. Whereas copyright subsists for a substantially longer duration over artistic works, registered industrial designs enjoy a limited term of protection. This differential treatment again reflects the legislature’s intention to balance the interests of creators with the need to preserve competition and innovation in industrial markets.

Conclusion

The relationship between copyright and design law in India reflects a carefully calibrated balance between protecting artistic creativity and promoting industrial innovation. Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 serves as the cornerstone of this balance and ensures that works commercially applied to products are protected through the appropriate statutory route. It prevents industrial designs from enjoying the longer monopoly of copyright while simultaneously encouraging creators to avail themselves of the design registration system.

Time and again, Indian courts have played a pivotal role in clarifying the contours of this legal framework. They look at the determining factors, which are the industrial application of the work, the extent of its reproduction, its dominant purpose, and if there is a role of functional utility. The emerging principle is clear: the form of protection must follow the character and use of the work. The evolving jurisprudence demonstrates a pragmatic judicial approach that prioritizes substance over form and seeks to preserve the distinct objectives of both statutory regimes.

As creative industries increasingly rely on commercially applied designs, businesses must carefully assess whether copyright alone is sufficient or whether design registration is necessary. In many cases, the difference between timely registration and reliance on copyright may determine whether effective legal protection remains available at all.

Contributed by: Aditi Verma Thakur and Shubhra Satpathy

[1] 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1647

[2] 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1979

[3] 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1283

[4] 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 958

[5] 2025 SCC OnLine SC 780

[6] Supra Note 1

[7] Supra Note 2

[8] Supra Note 3

[9] Supra Note 4

[10] Supra Note 5