The Rights of the Deceased: Moral Rights Incidental to Copyright Law
- Vanshika Agrawal
- 2024-04-25
Contents hide
1 Regarding Regularization of OTT Platform content:
2 Regarding Social Media Regulation Policy:
3 Regarding the umbrella effect of Freedom of Speech and Expression:
In October 2018 a PIL was filed by an NGO Justice for Rights Foundation[2] which sought to have separate guidelines for regulating content on the OTT platform, but the petition was dismissed by the Delhi HC on the basis that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is not the regulatory authority and there is no provision to regulate or obtain a license for displaying the content on the internet.
Thereafter, in October 2020, the SC issued the notice to the Centre in a PIL wherein it was prayed to create an autonomous regulatory system for regularizing the online content. In September, 202 the big OTT players under the backing of the Internet and Mobile Association of India signed a self-regulatory code of best practices known as ‘Universal Self-Regulation Code for OCCPs’ so as to uniformly prescribe guidelines to content providers for ensuring interests of the consumers
for conducting themselves in a responsible manner.
Thereupon, on November 9, 2020, the Central Government issued a notification bringing digital/ online media platforms under the ambit of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and amended the Govt. of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 by inserting part VA titled as ‘Digital/Online Media’ in the second Schedule bringing two new entries as firstly including films and audiovisual programs made available
by online content providers and secondly including news and current affairs content on the online platform.
RECENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS BROUGHT IN THE FIELD OF MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has been in the process of finalizing the Social Media Regulatory Policy by 2020 and has
introduced a Framework and Guidelines for Use of Social Media Regulations 2020. Thereafter, the SC in the case of Alak Alok Srivastava v. UOI,[3] issued certain guidelines for the dissemination of any news as
Media (print, electronic or social) to maintain a strong sense of responsibility and
ensure that unverified news capable of causing panic is not disseminate.
§54 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 provides for punishment to a person who makes or circulates a false alarm or
warning as to a disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic. Such a person shall be punish with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with a fine.
A daily bulletin by the Government of India through all media avenues including social media and forums to clear the
doubts of people would be made active.
Media is direct to refer to and publish the official version about the developments.
The most important defense which has been used for ages in India by the Media and Entertainment Industry is within the umbrella of Freedom of Speech and Expression. Suppressing any press or media system is one of the sensitive issues in India and in the past recent years the celebrities and politicians have construed their Rt. to free Speech and Expression from the platforms of Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. The growth of media has been at so pace that most often the cases are more subjected to media trial than being actual in a court of law. on November 30, 2020, the Bombay HC while dealing with the public interest litigation filed by 8 former police officers from Maharashtra and lawyers and activists seeking restraining orders against media trial in the SSR death case wherein the Bombay HC
under the bench of CJ Dipankar Datta and J.
Girish Kulkarni held that the trial by media can interfere with the administration of criminal justice and prima facie the act of certain news channels have been contemptuous and the court also stress upon its previous order of October 29, 2020, wherein the Centre was ask regarding the framing of guidelines for media coverage of sensitive criminal matters and
ongoing investigations and also whether excessive reporting
by the press amounted to interference in the administration of justice under the Contempt of Court.
[1] Aayusha Gupta, 4th Year Law Student, CMR School of Legal Studies, https://www.linkedin.com/in/Aayusha-gupta-2b86901a9.
[2] WPC no. 11164/2018
[3] WPC No. 468/2020.
Drop your comment