Copyright law and infringement

 

Author: Vanshika Agrawal, (CHRIST Deemed to be University, Delhi NCR)

INTRODUCTION

Copyright means a set of rights that are voluntarily relinquished to the creator of an original work of authorship, such as a literary work, artwork, film, or technology. The inventor of the original piece, or the copyright holder, has ownership of his work. He can transfer his rights to others or retain full control over his work by not granting anybody the right to duplicate or make it.

The definition of copyright has been provided under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957(Meaning of copyright). The provision explains the term as an exclusive right to authorize the doing or to do any of certain acts. These include reproducing the work in any structure and retaining it, issuing the copies of the work to the public, performing some work in public, making cinematographic films of the work, translating the work, and making adaptions to it.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

The unsanctioned use of someone else's copyrighted work is referred to as copyright infringement. Thus, it is the unauthorized use of other's copyrighted work, hence infringing on the copyright owner's rights, like the right to reproduce, distribute, showcase, or perform the protected material. Copyright infringement is described under Section 51 of the Act (When copyright infringed). It occurs when-

Without the consent of the copyright holder, an individual does any act that only the copyright holder is authorized to perform.

A person authorizes the use of a location for communication, sale, distribution, or display of an infringing work unless he is unaware or has no cause to think that such consent would result in a copyright violation.

An individual brings in unauthorized copies of a work.

If without the permission of the copyright holder, a person reproduces his work in any manner.

REMEDIES FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

According to Section 55(1) of the Copyright Act, the copyright holder is entitled to an injunctive remedy (Entitlement of remedies). An injunction is the most effective remedy in cases of copyright infringement. Injunction refers to the court process through which someone who is endangering someone's legal rights is prevented from continuing his actions or directed to return the matter to the state it was in before.

Section 55(1) of the copyright act further states that the copyright holder is entitled to monetary damages for copyright infringement. The purpose of giving the copyright holder damages is to restore him to his prior position. The number of damages to be paid to the copyright holder is determined by a number of criteria. Damages are often assessed for the amount that the copyright holder would have received if the individual had gotten the license from him. However, there are several additional elements that decide the number of damages, such as the copyright holder's loss of profit, loss of reputation, drop in the sale of the copyright holder's work, and so on.

The copyright owners have the option of filing criminal charges against the offender. The criminal remedy is not a replacement for, but rather an addition to, the civil remedy. As a result, copyright holders can initiate both civil and criminal proceedings. Copyright infringement is a criminal offense, according to Section 63 of the Copyright Act (Offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act).

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS INVOLVED 

Raj Rewal v Union of India & Ors. (CS (Comm) No. 3 of 2018: Mr. Raj Rewal designed the Hall of Nations building, while Mr. Mahendra Raj was the structural designer. In 2016, the ITPO proposed demolishing the Hall of Nations complex in order to construct an 'Integrated Exhibition and Convention Centre.' Despite Plaintiff's several attempts to safeguard the structure from demolition, the outcome was what ITPO intended. Following the demolition of the structure, Plaintiff filed a complaint against ITPO, claiming that the demolition operations violated Plaintiff's special rights under Section 57. The court noted that the plaintiff in this scenario cannot be allowed to prevent the defendant from demolishing the construction because doing so would restrict the defendant's right to exercise control over their property and land, which is provided to them under Article 300A.

Tips Industries v. Wynk Music (23 April 2019): Tips Industries Ltd (Plaintiff) is an Indian music company that has a major music library and provided Wynk Music Ltd (Defendant) access to it in 2016. When the license expired, both parties attempted to renegotiate the licensing conditions but failed, and Wynk sought sanctuary by citing Section 31D of the Copyright Act. Tips contested Wynk's use of Section 31 and sued Wynk under Section 14(1)(e) for infringement of their exclusive digital sound rights. After hearing both parties' arguments, the Bombay High Court found Wynk guilty of direct infringement on two counts: first, offering the copyrighted work under section 14(1) (e) (ii), which permitted users to install and hear to the plaintiff's work offline, and second, conversing the plaintiff's works to users through the use of their streaming service under section 14(1) (e) (iii).

Super Cassettes Industries Limited V. Youtube & Google(CS (OS) No. 2192/ 2007): SCIL alleged that the YouTube business model profits significantly from the use of copyrighted content uploaded without permission from the legal copyright owners and without payment of royalties. The High Court ruled that the video streaming giant and Google should cease duplicating, distributing, transmitting, or exhibiting on their portal any audio-visual works owned solely by SCIL.

Star India (P) Ltd. V. Piyush Agarwal & OrsC.S. (O.S.) No. 2722/2012: The Delhi High Court ruled that, while the performance and sound/visual recordings of the same are protected by copyright, the facts from the broadcasting are not. It is impracticable for any side to claim that such material evidenced by the performance is not in the public domain once the contest has been aired. The information given in the performance is in the public domain after the initial broadcast of the performance. As a result, the agreement between the plaintiff and the BCCI (about the 72-hour media right monopoly) is impractical since copyright protection is not accessible for material in the public domain. 

 

CONCLUSION 

To summarise, the objective of copyright is to safeguard the creator's rights while also providing incentives and economic rewards to the inventor. The scope of copyright includes literary or creative works that require originality, as well as databases and computer software. Although registration of work is not required to be eligible for copyright, it is typically recommended because it serves as evidence in court.

If someone infringes on another person's copyrighted work, he will face both criminal and civil sanctions. However, there are various exceptions to copyright infringement, such as when a person does not require the permission of the copyright holder to use his work. However, it is always recommended to create unique work rather than using someone else's copyrighted work without permission.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Websites, Bare Acts, and Books)

https://www.investopedia.com/

https://indiankanoon.org

https://www.mylawman.co.in/

https://blog.ipleaders.in/

Indian Copyright Act, 1957

Law Of Copyright Paperback – 1 January 2015; by Das Jatindra Kumar