Copyright in Indian Media
Samridhi
Chugh, Batch of 2022
Governing laws and rights
- the Copyright Act 1957; and
- the Trademarks Act 1999.
These acts are exhaustive in terms of identifying:
- original content;
- owners’ rights;
- remedies for infringement;
- fair use and defences;
- broadcasting, moral and performance rights; and
- border measures against the import of infringing copies and material.
In particular, copyright protection is extraterritorial on
account of India being a signatory to the Berne Convention and the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Copyright registration
is not mandatory under Indian law for seeking protection. In addition, the
courts protect common law rights, such as personality and merchandising rights.
The current challenges unique to the media and broadcasting
industry can be gauged from the variety of issues which have been the subject
matter of judicial review and interpretation.
What is Copyright?
Copyright is a form of intellectual property protection
granted under Indian law to the creators of original works of authorship such
as literary works (including computer programs, tables and compilations
including computer databases which may be expressed in words, codes, schemes or
in any other form, including a machine readable medium), dramatic, musical and
artistic works, cinematographic films and sound recordings.
Copyright law protects expressions of ideas rather than the
ideas themselves. Under section 13 of the Copyright Act 1957, copyright
protection is conferred on literary works, dramatic works, musical works,
artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recording. For example, books,
computer programs are protected under the Act as literary works.
Copyright refers to a bundle of exclusive rights vested in the
owner of copyright by virtue of Section 14 of the Act. These rights can be
exercised only by the owner of copyright or by any other person who is duly
licensed in this regard by the owner of copyright. These rights include the
right of adaptation, right of reproduction, right of publication, right to make
translations, communication to public etc.
Copyright protection is conferred on all Original literary,
artistic, musical or dramatic, cinematograph and sound recording works.
Original means, that the work has not been copied from any other source.
Copyright protection commences the moment a work is created, and its
registration is optional. However, it is always advisable to obtain a
registration for a better protection. Copyright registration does not confer
any rights and is merely a prima facie proof of an entry in respect of the work
in the Copyright Register maintained by the Registrar of Copyrights.
As per Section 17 of the Act, the author or creator of the
work is the first owner of copyright. An exception to this rule is that, the
employer becomes the owner of copyright in circumstances where the employee
creates a work in the course of and scope of employment.
Copyright registration is invaluable to a copyright holder who
wishes to take a civil or criminal action against the infringer. Registration
formalities are simple and the paperwork is least. In case, the work has been
created by a person other than employee, it would be necessary to file with the
application, a copy of the assignment deed.
**One of the supreme advantages of copyright protection is
that protection is available in several countries across the world, although
the work is first published in India by reason of India being a member of Berne
Convention. Protection is given to works first published in India, in respect
of all countries that are member states to treaties and conventions to which
India is a member. Thus, without formally applying for protection, copyright
protection is available to works first published in India, across several
countries. Also, the government of India has by virtue of the International
Copyright Order, 1999, extended copyright protection to works first published
outside India.
Indian perspective on copyright protection:
(A) Economic rights of the author, and
(B) Moral Rights of the author.
(A) Economic Rights:
The copyright subsists in original literary, dramatic, musical
and artistic works; cinematographs films and sound recordings. The authors of
copyright in the aforesaid works enjoy economic rights u/s 14 of the Act. The
rights are mainly, in respect of literary, dramatic and musical, other than
computer program, to reproduce the work in any material form including the
storing of it in any medium by electronic means, to issue copies of the work to
the public, to perform the work in public or communicating it to the public, to
make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work, and to
make any translation or adaptation of the work. In the case of computer
program, the author enjoys in addition to the aforesaid rights, the right to
sell or give on hire, or offer for sale or hire any copy of the computer
program regardless whether such copy has been sold or given on hire on earlier
occasions. In the case of an artistic work, the rights available to an author
include the right to reproduce the work in any material form, including
depiction in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work or in two dimensions of
a three-dimensional work, to communicate or issues copies of the work to the
public, to include the work in any cinematograph work, and to make any
adaptation of the work. In the case of cinematograph film, the author enjoys
the right to make a copy of the film including a photograph of any image
forming part thereof, to sell or give on hire or offer for sale or hire, any
copy of the film, and to communicate the film to the public. These rights are
similarly available to the author of sound recording. In addition to the
aforesaid rights, the author of a painting, sculpture, drawing or of a manuscript
of a literary, dramatic or musical work, if he was the first owner of the
copyright, shall be entitled to have a right to share in the resale price of
such original copy provided that the resale price exceeds rupees ten thousand.
(B) Moral Rights:
Section 57 of the Act defines the two basic moral rights of an author. These are:
- Right of paternity, and
- Right of integrity.
The right of paternity refers to a right of an author to claim
authorship of work and a right to prevent all others from claiming authorship
of his work. Right of integrity empowers the author to prevent distortion,
mutilation or other alterations of his work, or any other action in relation to
said work, which would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation.
The proviso to section 57(1) provides that the author shall
not have any right to restrain or claim damages in respect of any adaptation of
a computer program to which section 52(1)(aa) applies (i.e. reverse engineering
of the same).
It must be noted that failure to display a work or to display
it to the satisfaction of the author shall not be deemed to be an infringement
of the rights conferred by this section. The legal representatives of the
author may exercise the rights conferred upon an author of a work by section
57(1), other than the right to claim authorship of the work.
Famous Copyright Infringement Cases
1. The University of Delhi v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services
The infamous DU photocopy case was a landmark copyright
violation case in India. The genesis of this case lies in a prevalent practice
in the University of Delhi, wherein photocopy shops copy reading material from
prescribed textbooks and sell it to students at subsidized rates.
To contest the same, the chancellors, masters, and scholars of
the University of Oxford filed a case against Rameshwari Photocopy Services,
alleging them of copyright infringement under Section 2(o) of the Copyright
Act.
OUTCOME: The publishers had to withdraw their lawsuits against
the defendants, as it was observed that the shop had a legal license to operate
within the North Campus premises of DU.
2. The Associated Press v. Shepard Fairey
Associated
Press had published a photograph of Barack Obama in 2008, and a street artist
named Shepard Fairey took the image and turned it into a colorized poster. The
artist’s design rapidly gained popularity as the ‘hope’ poster, which was used
in Obama’s first presidential election.
In January 2009, AP demanded compensation for the photograph’s use in Fairey’s work. In response to these demands, Fairey claimed that his work didn’t reduce the value of the original photograph and therefore it should be deemed as fair use.
OUTCOME: Fairey and Associated Press came to a private settlement in January 2011, part of which included sharing the profits made by the poster.
3. Vanilla Ice v. David Bowie
& Freddie Mercury
OUTCOME: The case was settled privately out of court. Vanilla Ice ended up paying damages and crediting Bowie/Queen on the track.
4. Rogers v. Koons
Photographer
Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple holding a line of puppies in a row and
sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. Internationally,
renowned artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the
banality of everyday items, ran across Rodgers’ photograph and used it to
create a set of statues based on the image.
5. Cariou v. Prince
Richard
Prince is a well known appropriation artist — one who transforms the work of
others to create new meaning in his own work. For an exhibition in the Gagosian
Gallery, Prince appropriated 41 images from a photography book by French
photographer Patrick Cariou, claiming fair use that he created new meaning out
of the photographs. Cariou argued that it wasn’t fair use, but copyright
infringement.
Copyright and the Media
Media of all types, TV, radio, film, music, advertising,
press, publishing and even the internet, are regulated by various different
laws and statutory and non-stautory bodies. While the freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed by Art 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India broadens the
scope of the media, laws such as the Press And Registration Of Books Act, the
Cable Television (Regulation) Act, the Copyright Act, and even the Indian Penal
Code lay down certain restrictions on the media industry.
Copyright Law plays a great role in the media industry, since
the owner of an original creative work holds the exclusive rights to reproduce,
copy, publish, broadcast and even translate or adapt his work. The economic
benefit given by virtue of a copyright provides an incentive to the author to
create new works and protect them against infringers, encouraging new and
creative works by many different people. Thus, the media industry is very much
affected by the provisions of the copyright laws and the exceptions provided
under it.
Copyright and Press Media
Press Media is mass media that delivers news to the public.
This includes print media (newspapers, newsmagazines), broadcast news (radio
and television), and more recently the Internet (online newspapers, news blogs,
news videos, live news streaming, etc.). Press media is concerned with facts,
so not all press is copyrightable but among those that are, the written works
such as newspapers, news-magazines and blogs are copyrighted as ‘literary
works’, while TV news broadcasts and news videos can be considered
‘Cinematographic films’, and radio broadcasts and news podcasts as ‘Sound
recordings’ under the Copyright Act.
Works that are not creative or original cannot be copyrighted,
so, news, facts or information cannot be copyrighted as they have not
originated from the author (even if he was the one to discover them). While the
news itself cannot be copyrighted, a copyright can exist in the expression of
that news. Copyright in India only protects original and creative expressions
of ideas and not ideas themselves. Even Article 2(8) of the Berne Convention
for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886 excludes the protection
for “news of the day or to miscellaneous facts having the character of mere
items of press information.”
The reproduction or publication of anything in the public
domain does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, if a person
gains knowledge of an event and creates news item or publishes an informative
story on an online blog or shares a report, perhaps on WhatsApp or Twitter, he
cannot be said to be violating any copyright as long as he does not copy
anybody else’s creative expression.
Copyright and Advertising
Advertisements are paid, non-personal, public communication
promoting causes, goods and services, ideas, organizations, people, and places,
through means such as direct mail, telephone, print, radio, television, and
internet. They serve a dual purpose, first, they inform the consumers about the
product, giving information about price and potential performance, secondly,
they persuade consumers to buy their product by various means such as
attractive captions, slogans, characters, repetition etc.
Advertising is a very fast growing and highly competitive
industry, where using intellectual property laws to protect the advertisements
is of utmost significance. The copyright law is of relevance not only to the
advertisers and advertising agencies, but to the creative persons such as
visualizers, art directors, copy script and slogan writers, performers and so
on, who are engaged in creating valuable advertising property.
Like all other creative work, for an advertisement to be
copyrightable it must be original, must involve some form of expression and not
be just an idea (there is no copyright for ideas), it must not be from the
public domain and must involve some sort of labour, skill and capital. If these
conditions are satisfied a copyright can be given to an advertisement of any
type, an advertisement has various components involving literary, artistic,
dramatic, musical skills each of which may be protected under the classes of
work mentioned in section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Catalogues, brochures etc. fall under the head of literary
works and copyright subsists in them. Courts have on a number of occasions held
that copyright subsists in trade advertisements and catalogues. In Collis v.
Carter it was held that copyright subsisted in a dry list of ordinary medicines
sold by a chemist, arranged in alphabetical order, which had required labour,
expense and trouble, but no literary skill in its compilation. In Maple and Co.
v. Junior Army and Navy Stores an illustrated catalogue for advertisement and
not for sale was held to be a book and subject matter of copyright. It is
always open to doubt whether the component parts of the catalogue are original
but a catalogue is generally a compilation upon which the compiler has
exercised skill and judgement.
While advertisements printed in newspapers or magazines or
even on the internet may contain written material, copyright does not protect
names, titles, individual words, short phrases, and slogans. Words cannot be
given copyright even if the in question is an invented word, though it may be
protected by trademark.
TV commercials and advertising films can be included in the
category of cinematographic films as defines in section 2(f) of the Copyright
Act, 1957. In R.C. Products Ltd v. S.C. Johnson Ltd., where there was an
adaptation of the elements of advertisement or get up by the respondent and
there was material on record clearly suggesting that the subsequent TV
commercial was a copy of the earlier one, the court passed an injunction order
against the respondent in a suit for infringement of copyright.
Radio Jingles may be copyrighted as a sound recording
according to section 2(xx) of the Copyright Act. With regard to musical works
in advertising, using familiar songs or catchy music in the advertisement is an
effective marketing strategy and thus many advertisers use licensed copyrighted
music. In the case of William Music v. Pearson Partnership, an advertising
agency produced a TV advertisement for a bus company, which parodied the lyrics
and music of “There is Nothin’ Like a Dame” from Rodgers and Hammerstein’s
musical “South Pacific”. The plaintiffs sued the respondent agency. The judge
held that no special rules applied to parodies when it came to copyright and
that there was infringement of copyright held by the plaintiffs in the music.
Advertisements are generally creative works created by many
people in the employment of the advertiser, therefore, in the absence of an
agreement to the contrary, the employer will be the owner of the copyright.
Generally, in case of an employer-employee relationship the copyright lies with
the employer, while in case of an independent contractor the copyright lies
with the author.
Broadcasting rights, internet streaming and statutory licensing
Section 37 of the Copyright Act grants a special right – known
as the ‘broadcast reproduction right’ – to broadcasting organisations,
independent of the copyright that rests with the creator or owner of the work
which is being broadcast. The term of the right is 25 years. In Asia Industrial
Technologies v Ambience Space Sellers in 1997, the Bombay High Court held that
this right is available to broadcasting organisations, even if they are
situated outside India, so long as the broadcast is available in India for
viewing.
The right entitles a broadcaster to prevent others from engaging in the following with respect to the broadcast of a programme or a substantial part thereof:
- re-broadcasting;
- disseminating a broadcast without authorisation in exchange for payment; and
- making unauthorised sound or visual recordings of the broadcast or reproducing, selling or renting such recordings.
The Copyright Act does not define a ‘broadcasting organisation’, although ‘broadcasting’ is defined as ‘communication to the public’:
- by any means of wireless diffusion, whether in any one or more of the forms of signs, sounds or visual images; or
- by wire.
Section 31D of the Copyright Act enables broadcasting
organisations to request the Intellectual Property Appellate Board – a
specialised tribunal for IP rights matters – to fix statutory royalties for
literary and musical works, as well as sound recordings. The organisation must
pay royalties to the owner of the copyright at the rate fixed by the board. The
provision uses the terms ‘radio broadcast’ and ‘television broadcasting’.
Section 31D was introduced to the statute in 2013, by which time the
legislature was well aware of the Internet as a means of content sharing.
The courts have recently had to grapple with whether internet
streaming services qualify as broadcasters. The question was answered in 2019
by the Bombay High Court in Tips v Wynk in the context of the statutory licence
regime under the act.
The court held that online streaming services cannot avail of
the benefit of the statutory licensing regime, as Section 31D applies only to
radio and television broadcasters. The exclusion of any reference to the
Internet in the provision was read by the court as a conscious choice to limit
the statutory licensing regime to radio and television broadcasters only. The
matter is sub judice in appeal and the issue is yet to be finalised.
Broadcasting rights: ‘hot news’ and live match updates
A lingering issue for the media and broadcasting industry,
particularly in the field of sport and live matches, is contemporaneous or
simultaneous coverage via webpages and mobile apps of such events which are
broadcast by an authorised official broadcaster which has invested in the
broadcasting rights.
In Star India v Piyush Agarwal (2013), a single judge of the
Delhi High Court passed a limited injunction order restraining the defendants
from dissemination of live match information in the form of ball-by-ball or
minute-by-minute score updates and match alerts, without obtaining a licence
from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) (the body that governs,
organises and promotes cricketing events in India). The plaintiff had obtained
a television broadcasting licence from the BCCI and sought an order restraining
the defendants from simultaneous text-based reportage of cricket matches on
their mobile app. The court passed a limited injunction order allowing the
defendants to report with a time lag of 15 minutes from the actual broadcast,
which would allow the official broadcaster to reap the benefits of its
investment. On appeal, the Appellate Bench of the Delhi High Court overturned
the decision, holding that match information and updates are essentially facts
and have no protection under the Copyright Act. Therefore, publishing or
sharing match information or facts, irrespective of commercial or
non-commercial use, does not amount to copyright infringement, unfair
competition or unjust enrichment. The decision was appealed before the Supreme
Court. Although the Supreme Court restored the interim arrangement passed by
the single judge, it is yet to decide the issue finally.
Combating online piracy – from John Doe to dynamic injunction
Traditionally, John Doe orders have proven to be an effective
method for rights holders to secure their rights, both in the physical and
digital world. The first John Doe order passed in India – Taj TV v Rajan Mandal
(2002) – was in the context of the violation of broadcast reproduction rights
of a sports TV channel, wherein the Delhi High Court appointed court
commissioners to seize equipment at the premises of unnamed cable operators who
were broadcasting the 2002 Football World Cup without agreement with the
plaintiff (the official broadcaster). The John Doe model has been successfully
used against large-scale piracy by a large number of media houses and
broadcasters over the years.
However, John Doe orders have also led to cases of misuse,
where legitimate content and entities were blocked under the guise of such
orders. This resulted in the Bombay High Court in Eros International Media v
BSNL (2016) prescribing a three-step verification test for blocking orders to
be passed:
· written
verification and assessment by external agency of infringing uniform resource
locators (URLs);
· second-level
verification by the complainant and its advocates; and
· an
affidavit on oath.
The court also prescribed that all internet service providers
would be required to deploy a blocking page providing details of the order and
the court, enabling any legitimate or innocent party to approach the court.
John Doe orders have gradually become ineffective in today’s
digital age – where piracy is instantaneous and pirates untraceable – thus
requiring a fresh solution. The media and broadcasting industry faces
significant revenue loss on account of pirated copyrighted work available on
websites which are freely accessible and downloadable. Websites such as
Piratebay, Kickass Torrentz and other such ‘rogue’ sites function solely to
make pirated content available. If one URL or server is blocked, several others
surface with the same or similar names and server locations. In this regard,
the 2019 Delhi High Court judgment to combat piracy, by way of a dynamic
injunction, has provided significant relief to media and broadcasting industry
copyright owners to combat Hydra-headed rogue websites. To identify and prevent
such sites from hosting and making available pirated content, the court, in UTV
v 1337X.to, devised an effective mechanism by issuing a ‘dynamic injunction’,
which not only injuncts the identified websites but also future mirror
websites. The court has prescribed the following factors for classifying
websites as ‘rogue websites’:
· the
primary purpose of the website is to facilitate infringement;
· traceability
of the owner;
· non-responsiveness
of the website operator to takedown notices;
· the
website contains instructions to facilitate copyright infringement; and
· traffic
volume or frequency of access to the website.
The criteria laid down by the court to determine rogue
websites was needed in order to prevent any misuse of the dynamic injunction
against legitimate online platforms which fall within the definition of
‘intermediaries’ and enjoy statutory immunity under the Information Technology
Act 2000 and its guidelines.
Online platforms and intermediaries
The Internet has removed traditional barriers associated with
the dissemination of content, providing the media and broadcasting industry
with new avenues through which to monetise and make available their content.
Free access to online platforms gives content creators a global audience,
which, if used correctly, can add tremendous advantages and revenue to the
industry.
One such success story is T-Series, which is currently the
number one subscribed channel on YouTube! However, online platforms which have
millions of users and uploaders may find that their platforms are being used to
upload content without rights or authorisation, sometimes unknowingly and
sometimes deliberately. The volume of content on such platforms is so vast that
human supervision is impossible. Protecting free speech and encouraging the
growth of ideas for socio-economic development must be balanced with the rights
of copyright owners.
The Delhi High Court in its judgment Myspace Inc v Super
Cassettes Industries (2016) recognised the nature of online platforms, the
millions of uploads per second, the advantage of such platforms for free speech
and the content being processed in an automated manner without human
intervention, to declare that the actual knowledge of infringing content can be
only by way of identifying the specific URL and notifying the online platform.
The court held that social media platforms that act as intermediaries are
exempt from liability for infringing content uploaded by users, provided that
they take immediate measures to disable access or remove the content on
receiving ‘actual knowledge’ of such infringement by way of a specific URL, as
the intermediary cannot be burdened with the duty of determining whether the
content is legitimate or illegitimate. The court recognised that there could be
content online which is authorised, licensed or comes within the purview of
fair use.
Celebrity and personality rights
Celebrity and personality rights are not governed by
legislation in India but through evolved jurisprudence. In a 2018 landmark
judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld the ‘right to privacy’ as a
fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India (Puttaswamy v
Union of India), recognising personality rights as a facet of the right to
privacy. It declared that all persons have a right “to exercise control over
his/her own life and image as portrayed to the world and to control commercial
use of his/her identity” and “to prevent others from using his image, name and
other aspects of his/her personal life and identity for commercial purposes
without his/her consent”.
Over the years, many celebrities, including film stars,
artists, politicians and sports personalities, have secured injunctions against
the unauthorised use of their names or pictures for commercial purposes.
However, courts will not interfere with the honest and bona fide use of one’s
own name in business, notwithstanding the identity of such a name with that of
a celebrity. The Delhi High Court judgment in Gautam Gambhir v DAP (2017) is
instructive on this point.
Merchandising in India – legal framework
Producers and celebrities often resort to trademark and
passing-off laws for legal protection of their names and character likenesses.
In Star India Private Limited v Leo Burnett (2002), the Bombay High Court
deemed it necessary that the characters to be merchandised must have gained
some public recognition and life independent of the original product or milieu
in which they appear.
In the context of merchandising the image of real, living
persons, in DM Entertainment v Baby Gift House (2010), the Delhi High Court
applied the common-law principle of passing off and granted an injunction
against the unauthorised sale by a third party of dolls resembling a renowned
pop singer, without their permission, in view of the possibility of consumers
being deceived into believing that the dolls had been in fact endorsed.
The media and broadcasting industry is growing rapidly and
traversing its own traditional models towards new pastures avenues. Naturally,
new challenges are emerging with such growth. It is heartening that the courts
in India are resolving such issues in line with global jurisprudence, while
keeping in mind the balance to be maintained between freedom of expression and
the rights of content owners.
The case for modernising the Copyright in the
Digital Era
Copyright aims to strike a balance between incentivising
creators to generate more content, and maximising public access to them. To
encourage innovation, the Copyright Act provides a voluntary licensing
mechanism, which allows the copyright owner to make his/her works available to
the public at different prices. At the same time, the Act contains mechanisms
that can ensure access to content in case of market failure. For example,
compulsory licensing provisions protect against the monopolisation of content
by copyright owners. Copyright is also subjected to a limitation period of 60
years for most content in India, so that they become freely accessible after
the creator has had the opportunity to monetise it. ‘Fair use’ exceptions
protect such works from infringement suits if they are being accessed for
private use, research, academic or journalistic purposes, among other things.
These examples demonstrate how the copyright regime enables commercial
exploitation while balancing public interest.
The economic efficiency of copyright is maintained when the
benefits to create additional content outweigh the cost of restricting access,
according to scholars William M. Landes and Richard. A Posner. However, the
growth of the internet disrupted the balance between incentives and access to
new creative content. This is because the digitisation of copyright industries,
such as print and audio-visual media, lowered distribution costs, removed entry
barriers to the market and diminished returns on creative content. While this
is a boon for audiences and consumers, it has also made it difficult for
creators and to thrive in an increasingly competitive market. The accessibility
of content on the internet necessitates a move towards a modern copyright
regime that reinstates the incentive to create new content.
Copyright has existed as a legal right in India since 1957 and
in other parts of the world since 1710, when Parliament of Great Britain
legislated the Statute of Anne. Since then, creators have been rewarded with
the exclusive right to commercially benefit from their original works. At the
same time, copyright principles account for public interest in creativity,
through mechanisms that enable access. This framework provides the ideal base
for promoting innovation and creativity in the digital world. Preventing the
dilution of copyright is the first step towards a copyright law that is suited
to the digital economy. The next is to modernise the law in India, to account
for the new dynamics of content creation and consumption on the internet.
Many jurisdictions have recognised the need to modernise
copyright for a digital era. The United States enacted the Musical Works
Modernisation Act in 2018 that introduced a compulsory license for the
mechanical reproduction of musical works, without any creative inputs. It also
passed a law to empower creators to seek a speedier redressal route for
low-value works, called the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement
Act, 2019. Similarly, South Korea improved the administrative mechanism for
copyright by establishing the Korean Copyright Office and Korean Copyright
Protection Agency. India should look at a similar mix of holistic and
progressive measures to bolster the domestic copyright framework.
Important Copyright Judgements in India
Important Copyright Judgments
1. B.K. Dani v/s State of M.P:
Once it is so registered the author is deemed to acquire
properly right in it. The right arising from the registration of the book can
be the subject matter of civil or criminal remedy, so that without it the
author can have no rights nor remedies though his work may be original one.
2. Exphar SA & Anr v Eupharma Laboratories Ltd
& Anr:
Remedy in the case of groundless threat of legal proceedings
as par section 60 of the Copyright Act
3. Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v/s Birendra
Bahadur Pandey:
In interpreting the word "import" in the Copyright
Act, not more must be taken of, of the fact that while the positive requirement
of the Copyright Conventions is to protect copyright, negatively also, the
transit Trade Convention and the bilateral Treaty make exceptions enabling the
transit State to take measure to protect Copyright.
4. Sulamangalam R. Jayalakshmi v. Meta Musicals:
Kandha Guru Kavacham written by Santhanandha Swamigal as
claimed by the plaintiffs and as seen from the documents filed along with the
plaint is a literary work within the meaning of Section 2(0) of the Act. Merely
because he is a Swamigal having renounced the world, he cannot be compelled to
renounce his copyright too.
5. Vicco Laboratories v. Art Commercial
Advertising Pvt. Ltd:
The plaintiff has objected but did not take any action. It was
rightly held that the plaintiff has no title over the serial
The rights of a music composer or lyricist can be defeated by
the producer of a cinematograph film in the manner laid down in provisions (b)
and (c) of Section 170f the Act
7. Brooke Bond India Limited vs Balaji Tea (India)
Pvt. Ltd - Factors considered in determining Copyright infringement
8. R.G Anand vs M/S. Delux Films & Ors -
determining copyright infringement:
If the defendant's work is nothing but a literal imitation of
the copyright work with some variations here and there it would amount to
violation of the copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable the copy
must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion
that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.
REFERENCES
2. https://www.irro.org.in/lessons-to-learn-from-famous-copyright-infringement-cases/
3. https://enhelion.com/blogs/2020/10/28/role-of-copyright-law-in-the-media-industry/
4. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=428672dd-dc8c-49d7-bbf0-13329bbfcc5e
5. https://theprint.in/opinion/why-india-needs-to-modernise-its-copyright-laws-for-the-digital-era/550243/
6. https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/protecting-intellectual-property-media-and-broadcasting
7. www.legalserviceindia.com/copyright/
No comments:
Post a Comment