Tightrope Of Parody: Intellectual Property And Limits Of Comic Freedom In Baburao Controversy
When comedy meets the copyright claim, the laughter comes with a heavy receipt. The gag has proved expensive for Netflix and Kapil Sharma's team, who were served with a ₹25 crore legal notice over the performance of an iconic character Baburao Ganpatrao Apte[1].
On 22nd September 2025, a legal notice was served against Great Indian Kapil Show airing in Netflix prepared to air its final episode with Actor Akshay Kumar. The legal controversy emerged when Firoz A. Nadiadwala, the producer and the owner of “Hera Pheri” franchise objected over comedian Kiku Sharda's portrayal of Baburao in the Netflix show claiming it to be a non-innocent act. To him, the performance misused Baburao character for commercial gain without taking his prior permission before airing the episode. He claims that this is a blatant violation of two of his intellectual property right -copyright and trademark. He emphasized that Baburao is not only a character in “Hera Pheri” Franchise but also the heart and soul of the movie and no one can hijack it without his consent.
On the other side, the Netflix together the Kapil Sharma's team maintained that-the Act was a clear parody and this particular designed purely for humour. The Act was an exaggerated performance played for laughter and arguably transformative. It did neither affect the filmmaker's business nor eat into their market.
This isn't the first time India has seen such disputes. The Delhi High Court in Sholay Media v. Parag Sanghavi (2015)[2] protected the film Sholay and its characters from being copied in unauthorised remakes, underscoring their cultural and commercial weight. The Baburao case now asks whether that same shield extends even to parodies.
The issues goes beyond a single performance. This controversy raises an important question among India's film fraternity, creative teams regarding the use of one's fictional character under fair use and legal implications that can come with this and are the legal system competent enough to draw this line?
Characters as Intellectual Property
Fictional characters are not only imaginary characters but possess strong market value and commercial significance. Under Copyright Act 1957, once a character is developed with sufficient originality and distinctive details that distinguish them from ordinary, they become subject of legal protection. The Copyright Act 1957, allows creator to reproduce, adapt and share their work as per section 14 of this Act[3]. Section 51 of the same punishes any unauthorised use which is not consented by the owner[4]. In the landmark case of RG Anand V. Deluxe Films (1978)[5], the Supreme Court of India clearly laid down that- While Ideas cannot be made a subject of copyright, unique characters and their expressions can be.
Other than Copyright Trade Mark Act, 1999, also protects fictional characters as brands- their unique identity such as Names, images or even catchphrases can be registered and section 29 restricts any unauthorised commercial use[6]. The Bombay High Court in the case of Star India V. Leo Burnett (2003)[7] recognised time that Tv characters can act as commercial identifiers, establishing the principle of “character merchandising”. Expansion of legal jurisprudence in this matter can the seen in many cases one such landmark case is the case of Amitab Bachchan V. Rajat Nagi (2022)[8], the Delhi High Court stopped the unauthorised use of the Actor's name, image, recognizing that a celebrity persona itself constitutes a valuable right. By this logic real life personalities are entitled to such protection then fictional characters could be protected in similar manner.
Parody and Free Use
Yet, the copyright law doesn't bestow the creators with an absolute right over their work. Section 52 of Copyright Act[9] allows for “fair dealing”, including parody and satire. The foundation of this section can be understood through the lens of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Comedy, satire, and parody are not merely entertainment but a form of social and political critique, occupying a central place within expressive freedom. Imagine if every standup-comedian, mimicry artist or any impersonator had to obtain permission before every joke, the essence of artistic freedom would choke and essence of comedy would be strangled.
What is interesting is that other countries are facing similar problems that we are facing right now. In Campbell V. Acuff Rose Music (1994)[10], the US Supreme Court held that- Parody will be considered as “Fair use”, even if is making money out of it, as long as it adds new meaning to original work. Likewise, The European Union treats parody as a right given to artistic and creative freedom drawing protection from section 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In the case Deckmyn v. Vandersteen (2014)[11], the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified that parody has its distinct identity in the intellectual property law of EU. While it refers to the original work, it should remain unique. Its purpose should be to generate humour and not to promote hatred, defamation discrimination, in the guise of free speech. This framework demonstrates how EU successfully managed to keep a balance between the two rights. It is interesting to note that EU situates parody with broader protection by rooting it in the constitutional right linked to free expression, recognizing its role in democracy and creativity unlike India where parody is only touched through Section 52 of the Copyright Act.
Court has evolved itself in recognizing what is a genuine parody from distasteful act in the name of parody. In Warner Bros V. RDR Book (2008)[12] an unauthorized Harry Potter “Lexicon” because it reused characters storyline without adding anything new from their end. The rule is simple: parody is only permissible when it transforms the original rather than riding on the original work.
Drawing the Line
The moot question is how to draw the line between violation of intellectual property right and fair use. The answer lies in three tests.
- Market impact- A parody is problematic when it hurts the business of the original creator. The objective of Copyright law is not only to credit creator for their original work but also to protect their income. If parody, eats the market of original creator or diminish its value or spoils the chances of earning in future then such an act goes beyond harmless fun. The Sholay Media V. Parag Sanghvi case (2015) showed this clearly. The Delhi Hight court in this case ruled that Sholay and its character are viewed as valuable cultural and commercial assets. Blatantly copying them in another movie would affect their market value. Therefore, the court held that when these so-called parody affects the money or reputation of the original, it is seen as an infringement and not as fair use.
- Substantiating of Copying- One of the key question courts examines is how much of the original is used directly without transformation. If an impersonation directly lifts the famous dialogues, names, appearance, style, voice, body language or any idiosyncrasy of the character without much of change, it directly comes under the category of copyright and trademark violation because audience is going to watch similar characters over and over again. In such scenario parodies are simply stealing the ideas of original content.
- Transformative Purpose- The most important factor in deciding whether a parody is fair use is whether adds something to the original creation. A parody should add new meaning to original. For example, exaggerating quirks of Baburao to showcase struggles in day-to-day life or using his style to indicate social satire would be considered as transformative because the parody is saying something new and fresh then what was in original film
The idea was recognised in Campbell vs Acuff-Rose Music (1994)[13] where the Supreme Court of U.S. court held that even a parody that is making money can still be considered as fair use as long as it is transformative and adding new layer to the original.
The balance should be maintained in order to protect parody and satire but also stopping the misuse of character for cashing on them without permission.
Why It Matters Beyond Baburao
The fight is not just about a single Netflix sketch. The outcome has different implication for different people.
- For Judiciary, it presents an opportunity to clear set of rules as to who owns the character and how rights regarding them is to be governed much like RG Anand did decades ago.
- For OTT platform, it is a reminder that they need to take permissions before proceeding with a simple comic act.
- For performers and comedian, it creates anxiety - if any parody can land them in a problematic situation freezing on creativity and inculcating fear in their mind
- For Audience the issue is equally critical: will they enjoy bold and fearless comedy, or diluted and sanitised comedy.
The law must walk on the tight rope. Too much protection will smother humour, similarly too much control will deter creators from making a remarkable character. If the court gets the balance right, they can protect both creative legacies of Indian cinema while preserving artistic freedom of Indian comedians. And perhaps, in true Baburao style, that would be the real “correct” decision.
Views Are Personal.
. Netflix, Kapil Sharma Show Face ₹25 Crore Legal Notice over Baburao Sketch' The Hindu (New Delhi, 22 September 2025). ↑
Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd v Parag Sanghavi 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13934 (Del HC). ↑
Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 14. ↑
Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 51. ↑
RG Anand v Deluxe Films (1978) 4 SCC 118 (SC). ↑
. Trade Marks Act 1999 (India), s 29. ↑
Star India Pvt Ltd v Leo Burnett (India) Pvt Ltd (2003) 27 PTC 81 (Bom HC). ↑
Amitabh Bachchan v Rajat Nagi 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3647 (Del HC). ↑
Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 52(1)(a). ↑
Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, Inc 510 US 569 (1994) (USSC). ↑
Deckmyn v Vandersteen (C-201/13) EU:C:2014:2132 (CJEU). ↑
. Warner Bros Entertainment Inc v RDR Books 575 F Supp 2d 513 (SDNY 2008). ↑
Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, Inc 510 US 569 (1994) (USSC). ↑