Intellectual Property Rights - Law and Practice · Business Concerns in Commercializing Intellectual Property Rights

Owner's Rights Against Infringing Copies under Section 58

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

Under section 58 of the Copyright Act, 1957, all infringing copies of a work, and all plates used or meant for making them, are deemed to be the copyright owner's property. The owner can sue to recover possession or for conversion. Conversion relief is lost if the opponent proves he did not know of the copyright, or reasonably believed the copies were not infringing.

Understand Owner's Rights Against Infringing Copies

Copyright infringement does not only hurt the owner when copies are made. The copies and the tools used to make them stay in circulation and keep causing loss. Section 58 deals with this physical side of the problem.

The section creates a deeming rule. Every infringing copy of a work in which copyright subsists, and every plate used or intended to be used to produce such copies, is deemed to be the property of the copyright owner. The infringer or a later holder never gets good title to them, even though the owner did not make them.

Because the law treats them as the owner's property, the owner can take two kinds of proceedings. One is to recover possession of the copies or plates. The other is to proceed in respect of their conversion, which in plain terms means the wrongful dealing with the owner's goods as if they were one's own, such as selling them. Conversion is a claim for the value of the goods dealt with.

The owner's conversion remedy is limited by a proviso. The owner is not entitled to any remedy in respect of conversion if the opponent proves one of two things: (a) he was not aware and had no reasonable ground to believe that copyright subsisted in the work, or (b) he had reasonable grounds for believing that the copies or plates do not involve infringement. The burden is on the opponent. Note that the proviso cuts down the conversion remedy only. The text of the proviso speaks of conversion, not of recovery of possession.

Section 58 is a civil remedy. Do not mix it with the criminal side: section 64 (police seizure), section 65 (possession of plates, up to two years and fine) and section 66 (court may order delivery up or other disposal, whether or not the accused is convicted). Section 55 gives the general civil remedies of injunction, damages and accounts.

Key rules to remember

Deeming rule (s. 58): Infringing copies + plates used or intended for making them = deemed property of the copyright owner; Applies to works in which copyright subsists. The owner may sue for recovery of possession or for conversion.
Proviso to s. 58: loss of conversion remedy: No conversion remedy if opponent proves (a) no awareness and no reasonable ground to believe copyright subsisted, OR (b) reasonable grounds to believe copies/plates do not infringe; Burden of proof is on the opponent. The two grounds are alternatives.
Innocent infringer, general civil relief (s. 55(1) proviso): If defendant proves no awareness and no reasonable ground to believe copyright subsisted: only injunction + decree for whole or part of profits from sale of infringing copies; Do not confuse with s. 58. This limits damages in the infringement suit.
Criminal court's power (s. 66): Court trying an offence may order delivery up of copies/plates to owner, or make such other order on disposal as it deems fit, whether or not the accused is convicted; Disposal wording was added in 2012.
Possession of plates (s. 65): Knowingly making or possessing a plate for making infringing copies: imprisonment up to two years and also fine; Knowledge is required.

How to solve Owner's Rights Against Infringing Copies questions

Use this order for any case question on the owner's rights over infringing copies or plates.

1Identify the work and check that copyright subsists in it (literary, artistic, film and so on) and who the owner is.
2Decide whether the items are infringing copies or plates used or intended for making them. Cite section 51 for what amounts to infringement.
3State the s. 58 rule: such copies and plates are deemed the owner's property, so the owner may sue for recovery of possession or for conversion.
4Examine the opponent's state of mind. Apply the proviso: did he prove no awareness and no reasonable ground to believe copyright subsisted, or reasonable grounds to believe there was no infringement?
5Separate the remedies: possession and conversion (s. 58), injunction, damages and accounts (s. 55), and criminal measures (ss. 64, 65, 66). Say which one the facts call for.
6Conclude clearly, advise the client on practical steps such as a notice, a suit, or a police complaint, and mention keeping evidence of ownership.

Quickest way: Three-question check for section 58

When to use it: Use when time is short and the question asks whether the owner can claim copies or their value from someone.

Are the items infringing copies or plates for making them? If no, s. 58 does not apply.
If yes, they are deemed the owner's property, so possession can be claimed.
For conversion, ask whether the opponent proves innocence under (a) or (b). If he does, conversion fails. If not, it succeeds.

Common mistakes in Owner's Rights Against Infringing Copies

Saying the proviso bars every remedy against an innocent holder.
Students remember 'innocent' and stop reading the proviso.
Fix: Write that the proviso removes only the remedy in respect of conversion. The opponent must prove his innocence.
Putting the burden of proof on the owner.
Students assume the claimant must prove everything.
Fix: State that the opponent must prove lack of awareness or reasonable belief of non-infringement.
Treating s. 58 as a criminal provision.
Section numbers 64 to 66 sit close by and deal with seizure and offences.
Fix: Label s. 58 as a civil right based on deemed ownership. Cite ss. 64 to 66 separately for police seizure, offences and court disposal.
Confusing s. 58 of the Copyright Act with s. 58 of the Patents Act.
Same number, same paper.
Fix: Patents s. 58 is about amending a specification in revocation proceedings before the Appellate Board or High Court. Always name the Act.
Quoting the wrong punishment for plates.
Older text said one year or fine or both.
Fix: Section 65 now provides imprisonment up to two years and also fine, for knowingly making or possessing plates.
Applying the deeming rule to any copy of the work.
Students skip the word 'infringing'.
Fix: Genuine copies made with the owner's licence are not covered. Only infringing copies and the plates for them are.

Worked examples

Example 1

Anika Publications owns copyright in a novel. A press owned by Rakesh printed 5,000 unauthorised copies and sold them to a bookseller, Sameer, who knew the book was copyrighted. Advise Anika on her rights over the copies.

Show the solution

Copyright subsists in the novel (literary work) and Anika owns it. Printing and selling without licence infringes it under section 51.
The 5,000 copies are infringing copies, and any plates Rakesh used are plates for producing them.
Under section 58 they are deemed Anika's property, so she may take proceedings for recovery of possession or in respect of conversion.
Sameer cannot use the proviso. He knew copyright subsisted, so he cannot prove the lack of awareness in clause (a), and nothing suggests clause (b).
Anika can also seek an injunction, damages and accounts under section 55, and may pursue criminal remedies including police seizure under section 64.

Answer: Anika may recover the infringing copies and plates, or sue for conversion, because section 58 deems them her property. Sameer cannot rely on the proviso as he knew of the copyright.

Example 2

Meera runs a small shop and bought 200 pirated copies of a training DVD from a distributor who showed her a letter claiming the DVD was licensed. She had no reason to doubt it. The copyright owner sues her for conversion of the copies. Is the claim for conversion likely to succeed?

Show the solution

The copies are infringing copies, so under section 58 they are deemed the owner's property.
The owner may normally claim possession or sue for conversion.
The proviso bars a conversion remedy if the opponent proves she had reasonable grounds for believing the copies do not involve infringement.
Meera must prove this. The distributor's letter and the absence of any warning may satisfy clause (b), but it is her burden.
The proviso concerns conversion only. The owner can still seek an injunction against further dealing, and under section 55 the owner may still get an injunction and a decree for profits if Meera proves she was unaware copyright subsisted.

Answer: If Meera proves her reasonable belief that the copies were non-infringing, the conversion claim fails under the proviso to section 58. The owner can still seek an injunction and, where section 55 applies, profits.

Exam tips

Write the deeming rule first, in the Act's words, then the two ways the owner may proceed.
Always state that the opponent bears the burden under the proviso, and give both grounds (a) and (b).
In case questions, add a short line separating civil remedies (ss. 55, 58) from criminal ones (ss. 64, 65, 66).
Quote section numbers only for what you are sure of: 51, 53, 55, 58, 64, 65, 65B and 66 appear in the text for this topic.
Close with a practical point such as sending notice, seeking customs action under s. 53 for imports, or approaching the police.

Practice questions from Business Concerns in Commercializing Intellectual Property Rights

Owner's Rights Against Infringing Copies in other exams

The same ground in other exams, if you are preparing for more than one or want another angle on it.

CS ExecutiveCopyright Infringement and Civil Remedies

Owner's Rights Against Infringing Copies: frequently asked questions

What does section 58 of the Copyright Act say?

It says all infringing copies of a work in which copyright subsists, and all plates used or intended for producing them, are deemed the property of the copyright owner. The owner may take proceedings for recovery of possession or in respect of conversion. A proviso protects certain innocent opponents from conversion claims.

When can the owner not claim conversion?

The owner has no conversion remedy if the opponent proves he was not aware and had no reasonable ground to believe copyright subsisted in the work. The same applies if he proves he had reasonable grounds to believe the copies or plates did not involve infringement.

How is section 58 different from section 66?

Section 58 is a civil right of the owner arising from the deeming of ownership. Section 66 lets a court trying an offence order delivery up of copies or plates to the owner, or make another order on their disposal, whether or not the accused is convicted.

Can infringing copies be stopped at the border?

Yes. Under section 53 the owner can give written notice to the Commissioner of Customs asking that infringing copies be treated as prohibited goods for up to one year. Customs releases the goods if the owner does not produce a court order within fourteen days of detention.