India, May 24 -- Artist Anita Dube found herself in the middle of a controversy after using lines from activist and poet Aamir Aziz's poem, Sab Yaad Rakha Jayega, in her art without Aziz's permission. The Patna-born poet alleged that the lines were used without his "knowledge, consent, credit, or compensation" by Dube and exhibited at the Vadehra Art Gallery in Delhi. The poem and the artwork both fall under the purview of the Copyright Act of 1957. A wide range of creative works are protected under this law, which does not extend to ideas, themes, or plots but only to the particular form in which those ideas are expressed. The author is typically the first owner of copyright. Independent contractors may retain ownership unless a contract specifies otherwise. When work is created under a contract (employee-employer relationship), the employer is generally the first owner. Copyright arises automatically upon creation of an original work, and registration provides evidentiary support in disputes. The Aziz-Dube matter highlights ethical and legal questions about adapting the works of both living and deceased artists, in terms of consent, attribution, and commercialisation. In India, copyright protection for original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works endures for the author's lifetime plus 60 years. For other categories of work such as cinematographic films, protection lasts for 60 years from the date of first publication. Indian copyright law grants copyright owners the exclusive right to create derivative works, including adaptations and translations. Adaptation usually involves changing the format or medium of the work. The essence of the original work is retained, but it is presented differently to reach new audiences or serve new purposes. Derivative works are also protected and copyright in the derivative work vests with the adapter to the extent of the new, original contributions - subject to the subsisting rights in the original work. The right to adapt a work is one of the exclusive rights conferred upon the copyright owner. In the absence of a licence from the copyright owner, the adapter may be exposed to legal consequences for copyright infringement. Unauthorised derivative works typically constitute infringement. However, the fair dealing doctrine allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission. There are specific exceptions for purposes such as criticism, review, reporting of current events, and private use including research. Fair dealing seeks to strike a balance between protecting intellectual property and facilitating access to knowledge. While some political expressions may intersect with public interest, there are limits to this doctrine. Moral rights protect an author's personal and reputational interests in their work, distinct from their economic rights. These rights survive the assignment of economic rights and are often described as inalienable. A legal claim by an author against unauthorised modifications to their work must succeed in establishing that the treatment of the work has been prejudicial to their reputation. Dube acknowledged an "ethical lapse" in not seeking Aziz's permission, although she had credited him. She also withdrew the artwork from sale. Aziz objects to the manner in which his poem was used. Dube also invoked the spirit of the commons and "copyleft", referencing the creative commons framework. The incident has reignited debate on the commercial appropriation of politically resonant but marginalised voices in art. WH Auden, in Law, like Love, likens law to love that "we seldom keep", a fitting metaphor for the balance between artistic inspiration and the safeguards for both emerging and established artists....