ABSTRACT
Crowdsourcing is a popular method used by many companies to get creative ideas and designs from different people online. Although the term ‘crowdsourcing’ may be relatively new, the practice of outsourcing and organizing activities to a crowd has been around for centuries. It is a useful method that promotes innovation and provides opportunities for designers but it also involves the problem of intellectual property issues that are related to ownership, copyright and use of submitted designs.
Ownership, licensing and contractual arrangements have been studied in the literature on intellectual property management in crowdsourcing. However, a relatively less attention has been paid to the specific legal position of the crowdsourced creative designs under the Indian legal framework, especially the rights of creators over the submissions not selected by the company.
The research is based on the intellectual property rights of the crowdsourced design submissions, focusing on the selected and the non-selected works. It also focuses on whether the submission results in any transfer rights, the role of terms and conditions, and the rights retained by the creators whose designs are rejected. It also tells about the unauthorized use, copying, and protection of the designers in Indian law.
The paper analyses Copyright Act, 1957, Designs Act, 2000, contract law, judicial decisions and relevant platform terms through legal research analysis. It sets out legal and contractual steps to provide more clarity on ownership, licensing, protecting non-selected designs and management of unauthorized use.
Keywords
Crowdsourcing, Intellectual Property Rights, Copyright, Crowdsourced Design, Indian Intellectual Property Law.
INTRODUCTION
Crowdsourcing is the practice or method by which companies get ideas, designs, solutions online from different people.[1] Crowdsourcing emerged in the early 2000s when internet-based companies and platforms developed. These platforms started using collective knowledge and skills of a large number of people. Crowdsourcing enabled people to contribute to creating articles/information on platforms like Wikipedia, helping in software development, and solving complex scientific problems, more quickly and at lower cost.
The term 'crowdsourcing' was coined in 2006 by Jeff Howe, editor at Wired magazine in an article titled "The Rise of Crowdsourcing".[2] The internet allows companies to go beyond their employees and collect ideas and contributions from individuals from different locations and backgrounds. Depending on their requirements, companies evaluate the received contributions and select the best or most useful idea/design. It not only helps the companies but also provides opportunities to the designers to showcase their creativity and also economic benefits.
Although crowdsourcing offers many advantages, the increasing use of crowdsourcing also results in important questions about the issues of intellectual property rights.
The legal issue arises when a company has multiple designs but selects only one. The big question is what happens to the designs that don't get selected. Whether the creator retains copyright or the submission itself involves the transfer of rights and whether the company uses or changes the rejected design later may depend on the applicable law and terms and conditions of the crowdsourcing platform.[3]
Therefore, the relationship between creators and companies has to be studied thoroughly regarding intellectual property and contract. The legal issues that arise from crowdsourced designs are mainly examined through the Copyright Act, 1957, Designs Act, 2000 and contract law, each of which has a different role in determining the rights and obligations relating to creative works.
The online platform's terms and conditions also outline the rights of the creator and the company. Therefore, it is very important to see whether the existing Indian legal framework provides sufficient protection and certainty to the creators whose works are rejected.
This research firstly focuses on intellectual property rights within the context of crowdsourcing design submission in India, especially regarding selected and non-selected designs. The main issues are who owns the works and what effect do the contractual terms have on ownership, license and rights of the creator and what remedies are available in the event of unauthorized use or copying and also to provide legal measures for greater certainty to both the creator and the company.
The paper is structured as follows: first the idea of crowdsourcing and its relation to intellectual property law will be explained and then it looks at Indian law especially copyright, design protection and how contracts come into play. It also deals with the rights concerning selected and non-selected submissions and discusses the function of the terms and conditions of platforms. Finally, the paper analysis the legal issues and presents proposals for better protection and management of intellectual property in crowdsourcing.
Literature Review
Crowdsourcing has become very important as it is used widely by the companies to obtain the ideas and designs from the people all over the world. Now, it is not only being the part of the issues of business and innovation because intellectual property rights are attached with the design submitted by the creator related to the ownership, copyright, licensing, etc.
Many researchers have examined IP issues arising from crowdsourced designs discussing the ownership, licensing, copyright, contractual arrangements and terms and conditions.
One of the studies by Jeremy de Beer, Ian P., McCarthy, Adam Soliman and Emily Treen published in a journal article in Business Horizons titled “Managing Intellectual Property When Crowdsourcing Solutions”[4], examined the management of intellectual property rights in crowdsourcing mainly on acquisition of IP rights, reducing legal risks related to IP, role of terms and conditions in defining rights and ownership.
Another article by Erica Mazzola, Nuran Acur, Mariangela Piazza & Giovanni Perrobe, named "To Own or Not to Own?"[5], explained about the IP ownership arrangements in crowdsourcing innovation contests. The article focuses on whether the company should completely own IP or take license from the solver and how the choice between them affects our contest participation.
Both Jeremy de Beer et al. and Erica Mazzola et al. focus on IP issues raised by crowdsourcing and innovation at the time of contests. They both focuses on questions concerning ownership and allocation of IP rights. Whenever a company gets the ideas, designs and solutions from people, the question always arises: who owns the IP rights- creator or the company?
Both also show the importance of contractual relationships. The contractual terms between the platforms and creator may determine the ownership of IP. Crowdsourcing only gathers designs, it is important to have clear agreements. Both note that with the terms and conditions it should be clearly established in advance whether the company will take full transfer of rights or just take permission of its use. The difference between the researches is that de Beer et al. focuses mainly on the management of IP in crowdsourcing whereas Mazzola et al. specially focuses more on the ownership and licensing arrangements. Both studies highlights the need for clear legal rules in crowdsourcing. The IP ownership, licensing terms, and platforms contracts should be clear before so that there is no legal dispute between creator and company.
However, the existing research does not sufficiently examine the rights of the creator in a crowdsourcing contest whose designs are not selected under the Indian law. The studies do not sufficiently examine the issue of non-selected designs in Indian law. After rejection whether the exclusive rights of design remains with creator or platform terms restrict them? Terms and conditions of platforms are usually complex, which might allow companies to retain rights of non-selected entries. There is a lack of exploration in the Indian context on the interaction of copyright, design and contract law in relation to non-selected Crowdsourced designs. Therefore, it is essential to deeply examine the legal position of creators in India whose designs are not selected in the contest. The issues of IP ownership, licensing and contractual arrangements in crowdsourcing have been examined in previous studies; however, this research specifically focuses on the rights of creators over designs submitted through crowdsourcing platforms, including both selected and non-selected designs. It also examines the relationship between copyright protection, design protection and contractual terms and conditions in determining the rights of the creator and the company. The research therefore seeks to contribute to the existing debate by examining the legal position of individual creators under Indian law and the uncertainties surrounding the use and ownership of non-selected designs.
Research Objectives and Methodology
This study adopts a doctrinal research method to examine the legal rights of creators over crowdsourced designs, especially non-selected designs, under Indian law. Through this method, this study examines laws, principles and judicial decisions. Thus, doctrinal methodology is appropriate as the research interprets and analyses the existing laws related to IP rights, ownership, copyright, contractual arrangements in crowdsourced designs.
It also examines the rights of creators and companies in existing laws relating to crowdsourced designs related to ownership, licensing, etc. In this study, we use primary sources including the Copyright Act, 1957, Designs Act, 2000, Indian Contract Act, relevant case laws and judicial decisions. It also uses secondary sources of journal articles, research papers and reliable legal websites.
The study analyzes the relevant provisions of these laws to understand the IP ownership and protection in crowdsourced designs. It also examines judicial decisions to understand how courts have interpreted the IP and contractual rights of creators and companies. This study mainly analyses the position of selected and non-selected designs and it analyses whether the creator retains their rights over a design after it is not selected. Other than this, it considers the impact of terms and conditions of crowdsourcing platforms on creators and companies. This research is based on Indian laws so this approach fits it. It looks at what laws say and how they can be used rather than asking people what they think.
The research understands the obligations of both creators and companies and also how the IP laws operate with terms of contract. By this approach, it provides clarity about the non-selected designs and whether the existing legal framework provides adequate protection to the creators.
Legal Analysis of Intellectual Property Rights in Crowdsourced Designs
A design that is shared through a crowdsourcing platforms makes the interaction complex between Copyright Act and Designs Act. Whether the rights of the design is with creator or company depends on the type of design, legal registration and terms and conditions.
Therefore it is important to look at the rules, in Indian IP laws to find out what rights the creator has and what rights the company has.
Copyright Act, 1957
The Copyright Act, 1957 protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings from unauthorized use.[6] It protects expression and not the idea, an idea is not a copyright.[7]
Accordingly, where the submitted design constitutes an original artistic work, the creator may obtain copyright protection in the original expression of the design, subject to the requirements of the Act.[8]
But, the question of ownership becomes complicated when creator agrees the terms and conditions of crowdsourcing platform.
According to Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the first owner of copyright in a work is the person who created the work. In the case of a design created independently by one person and submitted to crowdsourcing platforms, the creator is considered as the first owner.[9] However, the position can be affected if the creator signs the licensing of copyright in terms & conditions of the platform or company. Therefore, it is important to differentiate transfer of copyright and use of work through licensing. The distinction between assignment and licensing is particularly important in crowdsourced design because the creator may not always intend to permanently transfer ownership of the submitted work. An assignment may transfer the copyright or specified rights in the work to another person, whereas a license generally permits the other party to use the work while ownership may remain with the creator. Therefore, the terms of a crowdsourcing platform should clearly state whether the creator is transferring ownership or merely permitting the company to use the design. In the absence of clear terms, disputes may arise regarding the extent of rights obtained by the company. This becomes more significant where several designs are submitted but only one design is selected. A creator whose design is not selected may reasonably expect to retain control over it, but the contractual terms may provide otherwise. Thus, clarity regarding assignment and licensing is necessary to determine the legal position of both selected and non-selected designs. Terms and conditions may determine whether the company receives ownership of the design or merely obtains a right to use it.
This becomes more important for the non-selected designs that after rejection the copyright of design is with company or the creator retains it. The answer to this question in this case may depend on the laws that apply and the conditions that the creator has agreed to. On the other hand, if the terms give the platform or the company control, over every submissions even the designs that are rejected the contract rules might changes how the creator manages what happens to the design after that.
While the copyright protect the original expression of crowdsourced design but the issues may arise on that design related to Designs Act, 2000. Therefore, it is very important to check whether the crowdsourced design can have protection and this how this protection is different from Copyright protection.
Designs Act, 2000
Under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, "design" means the features of the shape, configuration, pattern, ornaments or composition of lines or colours applied to any article whether in two dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial process or means whether manual, mechanical or chemical separate or combined which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye.[10]
This definition is relevant to crowdsourced designs because many submitted designs through online contest are related to the visual features of an article. However, the fact that particular crowdsourced design is qualified to protect under Designs Act depends on whether it satisfies statutory requirements. A design is eligible for registration under the Designs Act when it is new or original and has not been previously published in any country. It should also be distinguished from known designs.[11]
The protection available under Copyright Act and Designs Act can overlap in case of crowdsourced design.
According to general rules, copyright protects original artistic expression whereas Designs Act protects a features of visual article when it fulfills the statutory requirements. Therefore, it is important to decide which Act will protect the particular crowdsourced design.
Section 15 in Copyright Act, 1957 is very important in case of designs because it deals with the copyright of those designs which are capable to register under Designs Act, 2000. This Section establish connection between the copyright protection and design protection.
This point becomes relevant in case of crowdsourced designs because a creator can claim protection for original design under Copyright law whereas the same design can also fall in the scope of Designs Act. Therefore, it is important to examine whether the copyright protection will continue to be claimed when the design also falls under the registration of Designs Act. This issue becomes more essential when design submitted through crowdsourcing design is not selected because in this creator has to figure out which IP protection is still available to them.[12]
Section 15(1) clear difference between Copyright protection and registered design protection. When a design is registered under Designs Act, then the protection to that design does not continue under Copyright Act. Thus a creator cannot claim any copyright under Copyright Act for a design which has already register with Designs Act.
Section 15(2) is important because it further limits copyright protection where a design is capable of registration under the Designs Act but has not been registered. If the design is reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process, copyright in the design ceases. The application of Section 15 is especially relevant to crowdsourced designs because the creator may initially rely on copyright protection without knowing whether the design will later be commercially exploited. A design submitted in an online contest may remain unused, may be selected by the company, or may later be reproduced on a large commercial scale. Therefore, the creator should understand the different forms of protection available before submitting the work. The interaction between copyright and design protection also shows that intellectual property protection is not dependent only on the act of creating a design. The nature of the design, its use, registration and subsequent reproduction can affect the legal protection available to the creator. This makes proper identification of the applicable form of IP protection important in crowdsourcing arrangements.
This provision is particularly relevant to crowdsourced designs because a creator may initially rely on copyright protection, but extensive industrial reproduction may affect the availability of that protection.[13]
Ownership and Licensing of Crowdsourced Designs
Ownership of property is a big topic when it comes to crowdsourcing. This is because the person who makes something and the company might have ideas about what happens to the design that is sent in. Usually when someone creates a design on their own that person has the rights to it. These rights can change if the person agrees to the rules of a crowdsourcing site or signs a deal with the company.[14]
The Copyright Act 1957 has ways for copyright to be moved or shared. An assignment is when someone gives their copyright or some rights to another person. A license is when someone is allowed to use the work but does not take ownership. So a company that is part of a design contest might want to own the design or just get permission to use it. Owning the design gives the company control. A license means the creator still owns the design but lets the company use it in ways.
In design contests the rules and conditions are very important. The issue of non-selected designs demonstrates why contractual clarity is necessary in crowdsourcing. For example, suppose a company receives hundreds of logo designs through an online contest and selects only one design. If the terms provide that only the winning design is transferred to the company, the creators of the rejected designs may generally retain their rights, subject to the applicable law and contractual conditions. However, if the terms provide the company with a broad license over all submissions, the company may obtain certain rights even in relation to designs that were not selected. Therefore, rejection of a design should not automatically be treated as determining its legal ownership. The rights of the creator should be examined by considering the applicable intellectual property law together with the terms accepted at the time of submission. These rules say what rights go to the company or the site. A designer might agree to these rules when they send in their work. The rules might say if the company gets ownership or just a special permission to use the design. So the designer should know what rights they are giving away or allowing before they send in the design.
This difference matters a lot when a design is not chosen. If the rules say that rights only go to the winning design the designer still has control over the designs.. If the rules say the company has rights to everything that is sent in the designer may not be able to control what happens to the designs that were not selected. So clear and clear rules are important, for deciding who owns what and what can be done with the designs that are created. The contractual terms may determine whether and to what extent rights are assigned or licensed, but those terms operate within the limits of the applicable statutory IP framework.
Role of Contract and Platform Terms
The terms and conditions of crowdsourcing platform play important role in deciding the rights and obligations of creators and companies. Whenever a creator submit it's design through any platform, acceptation of terms and conditions create contractual obligation related to ownership of design, licensing and usage.[15] Therefore it is important to deeply examine the terms and condition to determine the rights of company and platform.
Terms may specify that whether the creator transfer some specific rights to the company or retain the ownership of design it mentions the detail about exclusive or non exclusive license, reproduction of design, exercising time period for right. Therefore, the wording of terms may affect creator's control on his/her design.
This issue becomes more complicated in case of non-selected designs. A creator may assume retaining of the rights over design after its rejection but it changes when platform terms grants the right on submission also on non-selected designs. These terms give permission to platform and company to retain specific rights even after the end of contest.
This creates a potential imbalance between creators and companies, because at the time of acceptance the creator cannot understand legal consequences of complex terms and conditions. Therefore it is important to have clear and transparent contractual terms, so that creators know whether they are transferring the ownership or giving permission for use of design.
The terms and conditions of 99designs show how a crowdsourcing platform can control ownership of submitted designs. [16]According to its terms the rights in a winning design move to the client through a Design Transfer Agreement.[17] The platform also says that a client does not get a right or license to use a design concept just because it was entered into a contest. Moreover when a designer submits concepts but only one is purchased the unused concepts stay with the designer. This shows that the platform separates a design whose rights are transferred to the client from designs that are not bought. Such a set up gives rules for non-selected designs because the creator keeps rights over unused work. However the platform's general terms also give 99designs a license over User Content for specific uses like running and advertising its services. Therefore the difference, between the ownership of a design and the platform's separate license to use submitted content matters.[18]
The 99designs terms shows how platform contracts can determine the scope of rights retained by creators and transferred to clients. When platform terms say that non-selected designs belong to the creator it makes things less confusing.. If the platform gets a separate license the platform might still be able to use that submitted content in certain ways. Therefore it is very important in the context to look closely at these contracts. We need to see if these contracts clearly show the difference, between who owns the selected designs and what rights creators keep over their -selected designs.
The 99designs example demonstrates the practical Importance of separating ownership of purchased designs from rights relating to unused submissions. Such an approach can provide greater certainty because creators can understand what happens to their work when it is selected and what happens when it is not selected. However, the existence of a separate license in favour of the platform also shows that ownership and permitted use are different legal questions. A creator may retain ownership while the platform may still have limited rights to use the submitted content for specified purposes. Therefore, crowdsourcing platforms should avoid using broad and unclear clauses that make it difficult for creators to understand the extent of rights being granted. Clear terms can reduce disputes and provide greater certainty to both creators and companies.
Legal Position of Non-Selected Crowdsourced Designs
The legal standing of the non-selected crowdsourced designs will depend on the applicable intellectual property law and the terms agreed between the creator and the platform. Rejection of a design does not per se decide the ownership of the design. The creator may still have rights over the non-selected design if the creator has not assigned or licensed the relevant rights. But if the platform's terms give the company specific rights over all submitted designs, those contractual terms could influence the creator's ability to use or control the design after it's rejected. Therefore, clear contractual terms are required to determine ownership and permitted use of non-selected designs. Another important concern is the unauthorized use of non-selected designs. A company may receive several creative submissions and later develop a product using elements of a rejected design. In such circumstances, the legal position would depend on whether the creator retained the relevant intellectual property rights and whether the company had obtained any contractual permission to use the submission. The mere submission of a design should therefore not be assumed to give unlimited rights to the company. The creator should preserve evidence of the original submission, including the date of submission and the original version of the work. Clear contractual terms regarding reproduction, modification and commercial use can help determine whether subsequent use falls within the rights granted to the company or amounts to unauthorized use.
Discussion
The analysis of the existing legal framework shows that IP rights plays an important role in crowdsourcing when the creators submits their design through online platforms. Copyright Act and Designs Act in India protects the design of creators and the ownership, licensing rules help in decision of rights of creator and company. Meanwhile the application of these laws in crowdsourcing become complicated because the contractual terms of platform affect the rights of submitted design specially when the design is not selected.
The existing Indian legal framework has many strengths for the protection of rights of creators. The Copyright Act, 1957 protects original creative works. The Copyright Act, 1957 also has provisions relating to ownership, assignment and licensing. The Designs Act, 2000 provides for protection of designs which fulfill the requirements of the Act. These laws, therefore, offer a simple legal framework to establish the rights of creators and companies for crowdsourced designs. The contractual framework also permits parties to define their rights and obligations through terms and conditions.[19]
However, the analysis also reveals some gaps when these laws are applied to crowdsourcing. The central difficulty is therefore not necessarily the complete absence of legal protection but the uncertainty created by the interaction between intellectual property law and platform contracts. Indian copyright and design laws provide a legal basis for protecting creative works, but they do not specifically address every situation arising from online crowdsourcing contests. As a result, the practical position of a creator may depend heavily on the terms accepted while submitting the design. This can create an imbalance where individual creators agree to lengthy or complex terms without fully understanding their legal consequences. The problem is particularly significant for non-selected designs because the creator may not receive any payment or benefit from the contest while still being subject to contractual restrictions. Greater transparency in platform agreements is therefore necessary to ensure that creators can make informed decisions before submitting their work. The current Indian laws are silent on the issue of a design submitted through a crowdsourcing platform and not selected. The mere fact that a design is rejected does not necessarily mean that the creator still has full rights in that design. The position depends on whether the creator has assigned or licensed any rights and the terms agreed to on submitting the design. This leads to uncertainty, particularly for individual creators who may not fully grasp the legal implications of terms of use on platforms.
Thus, the rights of creators are heavily conditioned by the terms and conditions of the platform. The case of 99designs illustrates how selected and non-selected designs may be treated differently under platform terms. However, the right to own a design and the right to use a design are not necessarily the same. Licensing can give a platform rights and still allow a creator to own their work. So the terms should clearly state whether the creator is transferring ownership or just granting permission to use the design. This distinction is especially important for non-selected designs.
To mitigate those uncertainties, crowdsourcing platforms should have the capacity to communicate, in a clear and simple way, the terms of intellectual property rights. The language should clearly differentiate between the selected and non-selected designs and specify the rights that the creator retains after rejection. They shall also specify the scope of any assignment or license granted to the company or platform, including rights relating to reproduction, modification and further use of the design. Such transparency would help creators know their rights and would also give companies using crowdsourcing platforms greater certainty.
Overall, the research suggests that Indian copyright and design laws form a basis for the protection of creators but there is contractual and legal ambiguity about their application to crowdsourced designs, especially non-selected designs. The relationship between intellectual property rights and platform terms requires consideration of both statutory protection and contracts. Improved understanding of ownership and licensing rights, and greater clarity in platform agreements could help to reduce disputes and provide a fairer, more transparent environment for creators and companies.
Conclusion
This research explored the intellectual property rights of creators on crowdsourced designs under the Indian legal regime with special reference to selected and non-selected designs. It looked at the protection offered by copyright and design law and looked at the effect of ownership, licensing and contractual terms on the rights of creators and companies. The study also looked at the role of platform terms and conditions in determining the use and ownership of submitted designs.
The study concludes that Indian law provides a legal framework for protecting original creative works and designs and that the Copyright Act, 1957 and Designs Act, 2000 are important forms of protection. The provisions on ownership, assignment and licensing are also a basis for the rights of creators and companies.
However, whether these provisions will apply to crowdsourced designs will depend very much on the nature of the design and the contractual arrangements between the parties. The main problem revealed by this research is the uncertainty of non-selected designs. When a design is rejected, it is not clear whether the creator still has all rights or if the platform or company has taken some rights through the terms and conditions. Thus, vague or ambiguous contractual terms can pose challenges for individual creators to understand and control the further use of their designs. This underscores the significance of considering intellectual property law, as well as contractual terms, when establishing rights over crowdsourced designs.
Thus, the terms of crowdsourcing platforms need to be clarified and made more transparent. The terms should make clear what designs are chosen and which are not. The terms should make clear the extent to which rights are assigned or licensed. Clearer contractual arrangements would help creators to know what their rights are and would also give certainty to companies. Hence, the research concludes that though the current Indian legal framework provides a basis for protecting the creators, the clarity in its application to the crowdsourced designs, especially the non-selected designs, would enhance the protection of individual creators and reduce the potential disputes.
References
[1] Lenart-Gansiniec, Regina, et al. “Understanding Crowdsourcing in Science.” Review of Managerial Science, vol. 17, 2023, pp. 2797–2802.
[2] Howe, Jeff. “The Rise of Crowdsourcing.” Wired, 1 June 2006, https://www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/
[3] The Copyright Act, 1957. Act No. 14 of 1957, §§ 17–19, Government of India.
[4] de Beer, Jeremy, et al. “Click Here to Agree: Managing Intellectual Property When Crowdsourcing Solutions.” Business Horizons, vol. 60, 2017, pp. 207–212.
[5] Mazzola, Erica, et al. “‘To Own or Not to Own?’ A Study on the Determinants and Consequences of Alternative Intellectual Property Rights Arrangements in Crowdsourcing for Innovation Contexts.” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 35, 2018, pp. 908–15.
[6] IP India, Copyright FAQs, Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks. https://ipindia.gov.in/pages/copyright/learn/faqs
[7] R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118.
[8] Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1.
[9] The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14 of 1957, § 17 (India).
[10] The Designs Act, 2000, § 2(d), No. 16, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
[11] The Designs Act, 2000, No. 16 of 2000, § 4, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
[12] The Copyright Act, 1957, § 15, No. 14 of 1957, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[13] The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14 of 1957, § 15(1)-(2), Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[14] See The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14 of 1957, §§ 17–18, 30 (India)
[15] Indian Contract Act, 1872, No. 9 of 1872, § 10, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
[16] 99designs by Vista, General Terms & Conditions, § 2, 99designs.com/legal/terms-and-conditions https://share.google/SMVzo6mHdyBuNCgT4
[17] 99designs by Vista, Design Transfer Agreement, §§ 1-2, 99designs.com/legal/design-transfer-agreement https://share.google/0H3SVhuyJRVLmQAYm
[18] 99designs by Vista, General Terms & Conditions, § 1.5, 99designs » Lost your way? https://share.google/fVn6SBOHXtt28BBi5 (last revised Mar. 21, 2025).
[19] Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14 of 1957, §§ 13, 15, 17; Designs Act, 2000, No. 16 of 2000, §§ 2(d), 4.