If an intern or employee built software in India, do not decide ownership from the payment record or job title alone. The Copyright Act, 1957 starts with the author as first owner, but section 17(c) provides an exception for a work made in the course of employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, where the preceding clauses do not apply: absent an agreement to the contrary, the employer is first owner. Whether the relationship and work fit that rule, and what the parties agreed, are fact-sensitive questions.

That means two common shortcuts are unsafe: “I paid, so I own every line of code” and “there is no signed document, so the developer owns everything.” First identify the relationship, the particular work, the scope of duties, and any written or electronic terms. Then decide whether to request handover, negotiate a licence or assignment, or obtain legal advice before either side reuses the software.

The official Copyright Act, 1957 is the primary source. Sections 2(o), 17, 18 and 19 are especially relevant to computer programs and ownership transfers. A software solution may also contain code, documentation, visual design, databases, third-party libraries, confidential information and inventions. The rights in each component may have different owners and rules.

What does Indian copyright law say about employee-created software?

Section 2(o) includes computer programs within “literary work.” Section 17 sets the default first-owner rule: the author is the first owner, subject to statutory exceptions. Section 17(c) says that, for a work made in the course of the author’s employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, to which clauses (a) and (b) do not apply, the employer is first owner in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. The provision concerns the work made in the course of that relationship, not every creation the person makes at any time.

The facts matter. Was the person an employee, an apprentice, an independent contractor, a student working on a project, or a volunteer? Who assigned the task? Was the software made as part of the role or outside it? Were company equipment, repositories, confidential specifications or paid working time used? What did the parties say about ownership, permitted reuse and delivery? A title such as “intern” does not by itself answer whether the statutory employment or apprenticeship language applies.

Section 17(b) separately addresses certain commissioned works, including photographs, paintings or portraits, engravings and cinematograph films made for valuable consideration at another person’s instance. It is not a blanket “commissioned work” rule for custom software. A client should not rely on a general claim that paying for code automatically makes it the first copyright owner.

The statute’s first-owner rules are only part of the analysis. A valid copyright assignment can transfer specified rights. A licence may allow use without transferring ownership. Contract terms may also govern delivery, confidentiality, access, payment and return of materials. Do not collapse those separate questions into “who has the GitHub repository?” Possession of files and ownership of copyright are not identical.

How does a written assignment change the analysis?

Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act govern assignment. Section 18 permits the owner, or prospective owner of a future work, to assign copyright wholly or partly, generally or with limits, and for the whole term or part of it. An assignment of future work takes effect when the work comes into existence. Section 19 requires a written assignment signed by the assignor or an authorised agent and requires the work, rights assigned, duration and territorial extent to be specified.

Section 19 also requires the assignment to identify the work and specify rights, duration, territorial extent, and the royalty or other consideration payable to the author or legal heirs during the assignment. It allows revision, extension or termination on terms mutually agreed by the parties. If duration is unstated, the statutory default is five years; if territory is unstated, it is presumed to extend within India. Under section 19(4), an assigned right not exercised within one year is deemed to lapse unless the assignment specifies otherwise. These defaults can matter, so a vague sentence such as “all code belongs to the company forever, worldwide” should be reviewed for its actual statutory and contractual effect rather than treated as self-explanatory.

An assignment should identify the deliverables and rights with enough detail to avoid ambiguity. It should address future code, fixes, documentation and build materials; distinguish background tools and pre-existing code; state whether rights are transferred on creation, acceptance or payment; and specify the applicable territory and duration. The agreement should also explain how third-party and open-source components are handled, since a developer cannot assign rights they do not own.

Section 18 also says an assignment does not apply to a medium or mode of exploitation that did not exist or was not in commercial use when the assignment was made unless it specifically refers to that medium or mode. A licence can be a better fit where the developer retains reusable tools or the company only needs defined use. Specify whether the licence is exclusive or non-exclusive, transferable or sublicensable, the permitted products and territories, modification rights, access to source code, support, and what happens on termination. The freelance contract clause guide covers a different independent-contractor setting, but its distinctions between background materials and project deliverables are also useful when reviewing an employment or internship document.

What about side projects built on personal time?

A personal laptop, weekend work or a business registered in a family member’s name does not by itself decide the copyright question. Review whether the particular work was made in the course of employment, what the employment and assignment terms cover, and whether company code, confidential specifications or other protected material were used. Keep pre-existing work and independently developed modules identifiable rather than assuming every project has one owner.

Before commercialising a side project, preserve its development chronology and compare it with the actual employment duties, prior-invention schedule, disclosure requirements and any written carve-out. Obtain a specific written approval or negotiated clarification where appropriate. A new business name does not resolve a disputed assignment or authorise reuse of someone else’s code.

What should each side check before source-code handover?

Before asking for code, the company should assemble the documents that establish the relationship and scope. Before refusing handover or reusing the project elsewhere, the developer should do the same. Preserve records without deleting, altering or exporting confidential company information beyond what is lawful and necessary.

Record or fact	What it helps establish	Question to resolve
Offer, internship or apprenticeship letter	Status, dates, duties and policies	Was there a contract of service or apprenticeship?
Job description and task assignments	Whether coding was part of the role	Was this specific software made in the course of work?
IP, confidentiality and handbook terms	Ownership, assignment and use restrictions	Was an assignment signed and what exactly does it cover?
Messages and project tickets	Scope, instructions and acceptance	Which features were requested and by whom?
Repository history and issue logs	Authorship, timing and contributions	Who wrote each component and when?
Equipment and account records	Context and access	Which systems or pre-existing materials were used?
Payment and stipend records	Compensation and relationship evidence	What payments were made, and for what period or work?
Dependency and licence inventory	Third-party rights	Which components cannot be transferred as owned code?
Handover requests and responses	What was requested and delivered	Was any handover condition agreed?

A company should separate code it owns, code it licenses, the intern’s pre-existing tools, and third-party components. It should avoid blocking final wages or making threats without first checking the governing documents and applicable employment law. A contributor should not erase repositories, withhold credentials or copy customer data as bargaining leverage. A disputed title question should be handled through counsel and a documented preservation protocol.

Worked example: a portal built during an internship

Fictional example. Ananya is hired as a software intern by a small company. She receives a monthly stipend, works from home, and is asked over email to build an internal customer portal. She uses her personal laptop and an account in the company’s repository. She signs a confidentiality policy but no separate IP assignment. After the internship, she wants to sell a similar portal to another business; the founder asks her to hand over the code.

The facts do not settle ownership by themselves. The company would examine whether the relationship was a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether the portal was made in the course of that relationship, and whether the confidentiality or other written terms address rights. Ananya would identify her own pre-existing modules and distinguish them from the portal code. Both sides would preserve the repository history, task records, and communications. If the company’s claimed rights or Ananya’s proposed reuse remain disputed, neither should assume the answer from who paid the stipend. They should seek advice on the particular documents and consider a written settlement, licence, or assignment that addresses the exact code and any third-party components.

A practical source-code ownership checklist

Before the person leaves or a dispute escalates, use this checklist:

For later investor or acquisition diligence, the India IP due diligence guide explains how to trace rights through agreements and records. The NDA clause checklist helps review confidentiality duties, though an NDA alone is not necessarily an IP assignment. Teams comparing documents can review Gotham’s India contract review workflow, or contact Gotham for product information.

Questions people ask about intern-created code

Does payment automatically transfer source-code copyright?

No general rule says payment for custom software automatically transfers copyright. The Copyright Act has a specific first-owner exception for some commissioned categories, but it is not a blanket rule for code. Employment status, section 17, and any valid assignment or licence must be examined.

Does the employer own code written on a personal laptop?

The device is relevant evidence, but it does not by itself decide ownership. The relationship, purpose of the work, assigned duties, agreement terms, and component-by-component provenance matter.

Is an intern always an apprentice under section 17(c)?

No. The label is not conclusive. The actual arrangement and relevant documents need review to determine whether it falls within “employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship.”

Can the company demand passwords or personal accounts?

The company should request access to company repositories, systems and assets through a documented offboarding process. A personal account can hold both company work and private material; transfer or export should be carefully scoped and should not expose unrelated personal data or third-party information.

Can the intern reuse the same idea or general skill elsewhere?

The Supreme Court in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films distinguished an unprotected idea from its protected expression. Contracts, confidentiality, trade secrets, other IP rights and the particular code may still alter the analysis. Do not copy or disclose company code or confidential materials while testing that distinction; get advice on the exact material and terms.

What if no document was signed?

The absence of a signed assignment is important but not the whole analysis. There may be employment terms, policies, accepted electronic terms, or statutory first ownership under section 17(c). The parties should collect the entire record before taking action.

This article provides general information, not legal advice. Copyright ownership depends on the work, relationship, documents, and facts; obtain qualified advice before using or withholding source code in a live dispute.
How Gotham researches and reviews field guides