The Rights of the Deceased: Moral Rights Incidental to Copyright Law
- Vanshika Agrawal
- 2024-04-25
The Copyright Laws Draft (amendment), 2019 by Government of India Amends Existing Copyright Laws,2013 has been the most significant development. In addition to adhering to the concept of “Digital India”, The Draft Laws also require the replacement of the word “Copyright Board ”and“ Intellectual Property Appellate Board ”, as two they are now covered as a result of the Finance Act, 2017. Earlier, The IPAB exercised real and effective jurisdiction over respect for patents, trademarks and landmarks(GIs) but not copyright. Another purpose of the Framework Rules to bring transparency and accountability to the functioning of Copyright Communities and the allocation of royalties to writers / job owners.
Therefore, the new requirement haspresented where the Copyright Communities must submitand make it available on its website, for at least three years, an annual financial report. Also, depending onPending Terms, All Copyright Registration Requests tothe computer system can now only be compatible with the first 10and the last 10 pages of the source code (instead of the entire sourcecode and item code) where the source code is longer than 20pages, or the entire source code if less than 20 pages. However,there should be no restricted or reconstructed parts. The draft rules have never been implemented.
The Copyright Office has also taken steps toimprove efficiency and simplify the seamless registration of copyright applications. Prosecution of documents, amazing works and art can be done entirely onlinewithout the need for portable copies if the size oftitle function is 5MB or less. Requirements for bookmarks signed in applications have been dropped and a scanned image ofsignatures can be posted online by signing the app.Even responses to incompatible books can be posted online [uploadlimit 500KB].
In a review of submissions received from various stakeholders, the Copyright Office issued a clarification on this question.about whether it is necessary to obtain a license to use audiorecordings to further any marriage-related activity or not.While providing clarification regarding the above question,
The Copyright Office repeats that marriage procedures againother related public events are included withinto view the term religious ceremony under Section 52 (1)(of) the Act. Section 52 of the Act includes certain actsdoes not imply copyright infringement. Specifically, Category52 (1) (za) of the Act states as follows:“Doing literature, theatre or music orto communicate with the public about this work or audio recording onthe course of any true religious festival or official ceremonyheld by the Central Government or the State Government or any other placeauthority.
Definition – For the purpose of this section of the law, a religious ceremonyincluding the wedding procession and other related social eventson marriage. The Copyright Office clarified that in view of the above provision and the meaning thereof, any noise the recording is used during religious ceremonies,including a wedding procession and other related public events, will not be the same as copyright infringementtherefore no license is required.
Recently, at Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd v. Ameya Vinod Khopkar & Ors, Bombay High Court has ruled that the distribution of copyright in respect of an original film does not mean thatautomatic copyright allocation in accordance with this film ifnothing to do with the order in the title deed Itis important to keep this decision in mind while drafting agreements, assignments and licences to provide specifically for thetransfer, assignment or creation of any rights relating to sequels.
Clarification regarding copyright protection on facts and incidents in the public domain given in the case of Giant Rocket Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Priyanka Ghatak And Ors. wherein the Delhi High Court held that the true storyof the murder of Syed Modi, who was an eight-time nationalbadminton champion, is already in the public domain and therefore there cannot be any copyright on the story per se.
The Delhi High Court held that, since the story is not a fictional story, and is merely the narration of the crime and its prosecution, the Plaintiff did not have sufficient grounds to claim exclusive rights over the contents. Each party can create a separate script and narration of the same story. In this case, the Plaintiff had failed to showcase the comparison of the two sets of scripts to show similarities in the script/narration.
The Delhi High Court in MRF Ltd v. Metro Tyres Ltdheld that the scope of protection of a cinematograph film is onpar with other original works and, therefore, the test of substantial similarity laid down in R.G. Anand v. M/s Deluxe Films andOrs. (1978)4 SCC 118 will apply. The Hon’ble High Court observed that making a copy of a cinematograph film does not just mean making a physical copy of the film by a process of duplication, but it also refers to another film which substantially, fundamentally, essentially and materially resembles/reproduces the original film. Consequently, copying of fundamental/essential/distinctive features of a film would constitute infringement.
The Hon’ble High Court disagreed with the judgment passed bythe Bombay High Court in Star India v. Leo Burnett (which heldthat “to make a copy” means to make a physical copy by processof duplication) on the grounds that: (i) the finding that a cinematograph film does not require originality is not in consonancewith the Berne Convention; and (ii) it was not brought to the attention of the Bombay High Court that the 1998 Norowzian v.Arks judgment (UK) (heavily relied upon by the Bombay High Court to reach its conclusion) has been overruled in relation to the issue of law and the Appeal Court has held that a film is entitled to protection as an original work.
In addition to the merger of the Copyright Board with IPAB. Another important change brought about by Draft Copyright(Amendment) Legislation, 2019. Deals with legal licenses for broadcasting of literary and music works and audio recordings. Thewords “radio and television” have been replacedthe words “each way of broadcasting”. Suggested words“Each channel of communication” is by nature wide and possible translate to include online-based services.
Last year, the Delhi High Court, by its decision in UTV Software Communication Ltd. and Ors. v. 1337X.TO and Ors.,had introduced the solution of “oppressive commands” below. Where right holders do not need to undertake a time-consuming court order process to obtain restraining ordersextracted from ISPs. As a result of this judgment, they do not complain. They are allow to go to the Delhi High Registrar Court (administrative position). To extend the order of order already provide against the website in another mirror / mirror e direct / alphanumeric ”. Website containing the same content such as that of the website is already block / block.
The Court also directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology of the Government of India. To explore the possibility of a technologically feasible method to caution the viewers of infringing content. To refrain from viewing/downloading such infringing material or otherwise be liable to penalties in the form of fines. Recently, in Jagran Prakashan Limited v. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors., an ad interim injunction was grant against Telegram FZ LLC (Defendant No. 1), the owner of the instant messaging application “Telegram” and allowed users to create channels. On the said application without disclosing their identity. The Plaintiff publishes the leading newspaper Dainik Jagran.
The users of “Telegram” app had created fake Dainik Jagran channels and were circulating digital copies of Dainik Jagran newspaper. As the identity of users was not disclose, the Plaintiff prayed for a John Doe Order. The Court observed that Defendant No. 1 cannot escape from intermediary liability and an ad interim injunction was grant against Defendant No. 1 and unknown defendants. Defendant No. 1 was also direct to disclose the identities of the users operating the infringing channels. And block/take down the channels within 48 hours of receipt of the Order.
There has not been any specific legislative or case law development with respect to copyright and artificial intelligence. However, it will be interesting for the readers to know that. The Indian Government has recently launched the National Artificial Intelligence (AI) Portal. (https://indiaai.in/). A joint initiative of the National Association of Software and Service Companies (Nasscom). And the National e-Governance Division of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). This portal is a one-stop platform and a reservoir of resources for information on AI-related advancements in India.
Drop your comment