Myth vs. Law

Myth: Paying for Work Means You Own the Copyright

Published 8 September 2026 · 4 min read

A founder pays a freelance developer or designer, receives the final files, and assumes ownership transferred the moment payment cleared. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, that assumption is usually wrong — and the gap between assumption and law is exactly where disputes start.

Myth

"I paid for it, so I own it."

Law

Payment alone doesn't transfer copyright. A specific, written, signed assignment is required in most cases.

Why this myth feels so intuitive

It makes commercial sense — you commissioned the work, you paid for it, you should own it. And for certain narrow categories, Indian law actually agrees with you automatically.

The one narrow exception people over-apply

Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 does create a commissioning exception — but it applies to a specific, limited list: photographs, paintings or portraits, engravings, and cinematograph films. If you commissioned one of these specifically, ownership can vest with the person who commissioned it, without a separate written assignment.

The gap: software, written content, website copy, graphic designs, and most digital deliverables are not on that list. They're literary or artistic works under the general framework — and Section 17(b)'s automatic exception simply doesn't reach them.

What actually transfers ownership

For anything outside that narrow list, Section 19 of the Copyright Act requires a copyright assignment to be in writing and signed by the person giving up the rights. No written, signed assignment means the original creator likely still owns it — regardless of how much was paid, or how clearly everyone assumed otherwise.

A second trap, even when there is a written assignment

Even where a written assignment exists, Sections 19(4), (5), and (6) create defaults that can undo the founder's actual intent if the document doesn't address them directly:

Section 19(4): if the assignee doesn't "exercise" the assigned rights within one year, the assignment can lapse — unless the agreement expressly says otherwise.

Sections 19(5) and (6): absent explicit terms, an assignment is presumed to last only 5 years and apply only within India — not perpetual, not worldwide, even if that's clearly what both sides intended.

A properly drafted IP assignment clause needs to explicitly override all three defaults — non-lapsing, full copyright term, and worldwide territory — in plain, direct language. Silence doesn't default in the founder's favour; it defaults against it.

What this means practically

If you've commissioned software, content, or design work and only have an invoice or payment confirmation — not a signed IP assignment — there's a real, live risk that ownership never actually transferred to you, no matter how long ago the work was delivered and paid for.

Check if your commissioned work is actually assigned

Our IP Assignment Agreement is built specifically to close all three of these gaps — non-lapsing, full-term, worldwide.

View IP Assignment Agreement →

Sources: Copyright Act, 1957, Sections 17(b), 19(1), 19(4), 19(5), 19(6). This is general legal information, not legal advice — consult an enrolled advocate for your specific situation.