Media And Copyright Law: A thin Line a division Seminar Paper submitted towards partial fulfillment of assessment in Seminar Paper in ( Seminar Media Law)
UNDER THE NDER THE GUIDANCE
OF MR .
PARVEEN K UMAR UMAR
Mentor: Media Law Faculty of Law
SUBMITTED BY:
Rahul Meena X Semester Student of Bp.Sc. LL.B. L L.B. (Constitutional Law Hons. !ational Law "ni#ersity$ "ni#ersity$ %odhpur
_____________________________________ __________________________________________ _____ NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR WINTER S SESSION (JANUARY-MAY 2!"#
TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE TABLE OF CONTENT......................................................................................... CONTENT......................................................................................... ............2 ........ ....2 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................$
R &S&'RCH &S&'RCH M&H)*)L)+, .............................................................................................F))!)!+ S,L&:........................................................................................................R &S&'RCH &S&'RCH )B%&C/&S ....................................................................................................R &S&'RCH &S&'RCH 0"&S)!S.....................................................................................................&!'/& CH'1&R2')!...........................................................................................3 1R)1)S&* BBL)+R'1H, ...............................................................................................3
1. Books and Reports:................................................................... Reports:..................... ...................................................... ................. ................. .........7 .7 2.
Websites:..............................................................................................................8
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................% BRIEF HISTORY HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT COPYRIGHT LAWS............................................... LAWS............................................... ................. ......... ........ !!
"S SC&!'R).................................................................................................................44 !*'! SC&!'R)..........................................................................................................45 WHAT COPYRIGHT COPYRIGHT LAW LAW COVERS.................................................................... ......!& DURATIO DURATION N OF COPYRIGHTS................................................ COPYRIGHTS................................................ ....................................!$ OVERVIEW OVERVIEW OF COPYRIGHT LAW.................................................. LAW.................................................. .........................!" ..................... ....!" INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT...........................................................................!'
5
!*'! SC&!'R)..........................................................................................................43 ".S. SC&!'R)...............................................................................................................56 OBJECT OF COPYRIG COPYRIGHT HT LAW LAW...................................................... ................................................................ ................... ................. ........ 22 COPYRIGHT COPYRIGHT VERSUS VERSUS THE FREEDOM FREEDOM OF EPRESSION............................... EPRESSION....................... ...........2) ...2) THE FAIR USE DILEMMA..........................................................................................2$
!*'! SC&!'R)..........................................................................................................57 ".S. SC&!'R)...............................................................................................................53 L&'*!+ C'S& L'8S '8S.....................................................................................................96 C)1,R+H L'8 VS ! "!VS 1"BLCS R +H +H ) ; !)8.................................................94 COPYRIGHT COPYRIGHT LAW LAW AND AND INTERNET............................................... INTERNET............................................... ................. ........ ................. .........&) .&)
L&'*!+ C'S& L'8S '8S.....................................................................................................93 MORAL RIGHTS AND COPYRIGHT COPYRIGHT LAW................................................ LAW................................................ ...............)
" !&* ; !+*)M !+*)M SC&!'R)........................................................................................<4 !*'! SC&!'R)..........................................................................................................<5 L&'*!+ C'S& L'8S..............................................................................................<9 ".S. SC&!'R)...............................................................................................................<7 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................)' BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................)%
9
INTRODUCTION
S e en en f ro r o m a d if i f fe fe re r e nt n t a n= n = le l e $ c o py p y ri ri =h = h t i s n ot o t a p os o s it i t i# i# e r i= i= ht ht t o d o somethin= >ut confers a ne=ati#e ri=ht$ which restricts others from copyin= the the ori=inal ori=inal wor? wor? of an author author.. ' ri=ht for one one person person is thus thus a restrict restriction ion on a n ot h er . S in c e the law of copyri=ht protects the ri=ht of one person and restrains another from e@ercisin= correspondin= ri=hts$ the Auestion naturally arises as to whether the ri=ht of of the copyri=ht copyri=ht owner infrin=es infrin=es the freedom freedom of e@pr essio n of ano ther u n de d e r A*+/ !%(!#(0# 1 +3/ C145++6+14 or the freedom of >usiness of anothe anotherr =uaran =uarantee teed d und under er A*+/ defamation$ n$ contempt$ contempt$ A*+/ !%(!#(7#. !%(!#(7#. "nli?e defamatio morality$ decency$ incitements to an offence and the li?e$ copyri=ht is not one o f t he he s pe pe ci ci fi fi ed ed r es es ttrr ic ic ti ti on on s u nd nd eerr A*+/ Howe#e #er$ r$ the law law of A*+/ !%(2#. !%(2#. Howe copyri=ht is an incident of the =eneral law of property. property. 8hate#er 8hate#er an indi#idual indi#idual prod pr oduc uc es >y the th e appl ap plic icat atio ion n of his hi s la>o la >our ur$$ inte in tell llec ectt or s ? i l l i s h i s p r o p e r t y. h e law of copyri=ht creates a further statutory intan=i>le intan=i>le ri=ht of property property in respect of such wor? if it is an ori=inal wor? 4. he ri=ht to free e@pression or free trade cannot >e stretched to mean that a person can >e entitled to >enefit from anoth an oth er s pro perty pe rty or the fru its of anot another herss la>ou la>ourr wheth whether er tan=i tan=i>le >le or or intan intan=i> =i>le. le. he present study loo?s at the mechanism in the ".S.$ the ".;. and ndia to see the ri=hts and lia>ilities under >oth the re=ime as to understand the clear demarcation of >oundaries created >y >oth the laws.
4 he Copyri=ht 'ct$ 473$ Section 49 (4 (a. <
R ESEARCH ESEARCH METHODOLOGY
' deducti#e approach is followed in this paper. he data collected would >e of secondary nature. Both primary and secondary data ha#e >een relied upon to attain the o>ecti#es of the resear research ch paper. paper. he data data would would >e collec collected ted throu=h throu=h case case laws$ laws$ >oo?s$ >oo?s$ ourna ournals$ ls$ periodicals and certain we>sites. FOOTNOTING STYLE:
he footnotin= style and the formattin= of the proect wor? is uniform throu=hout which is in accordance with !L" footnotin= style. R ESEARCH ESEARCH OBJECTIVES
•
o study study the lia>ilities under copyri=ht law and the e@ceptions as well. o understand the clear limitation under >oth the laws. o discuss discuss the aspect aspect of freedom freedom of e@press e@pression ion tal?in= tal?in= copyri= copyri=ht ht law into into
•
consideration. o discuss the position re=ardin= disclosure of information >y any source of
•
media in the "nited ;in=dom and "nited States of 'merica. o critically analyse pro#isions in #arious le=islations alon= with case laws to
•
e@amine position in ndia. o discuss the position of copyri=ht law in "nited ;in=dom$ "nited States of
• •
'merica and india with respect to media law.
R ESEARCH ESEARCH 8UESTIONS
•
8hat are the ri=hts and lia>ilities under the re=ime of Copyri=ht LawD 8hat 8hat are are the the ri=h ri=hts ts unde underr the the re=i re=ime me of Medi Mediaa Law Law and and the the Free Freedo dom m of
•
&@pressionD 8here e@actly the distinction can >e drawn >etween the ri=hts under >oth the
•
re=imeD 8hat is the position re=ardin= in the "nited ;in=domD
•
7
•
8hat is the position re=ardin= >oth the re=imes in the "nited States of 'merica$
•
".; and ndiaD 8hat is the position re=ardin= the e#olution of law >y the pur#iew of Case Laws
•
in the "nited States of 'merica$ ".; and ndiaD 8here the demarcation can >e drawn considerin= >oth the Re=imes across the 8orldD
TENTATIVE CHAPTERI9ATION • • • • •
•
ntroduction Brief history of Copyri=ht Laws 8hat Copyri=ht law Co#ers )#er#iew 'nd )>ect of Copyri=ht Laws Copyri=ht Law Vis!"!Vis 1u>lics Ri=ht o ;now Copyri=ht Law 'nd nternet Moral Ri=hts 'nd Copyri=ht Law Conclusion
PROPOSED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
B##$S %&' R (P#RS :
• •
2.
Law of *e Press b+ '.'.Basu "rsula Smartt$ Media , (ntertainment Law$ 5nd &dition$ (Routled=e$ 564< Madha#i +. *iwan$ -aets of Media Law/ 5nd &dition$ 5649 Ma0or Priniples #f Media Law
W (BS(S : www.op+ri1*t.1o2 www.itmedialaw.or1 www.mediaeduationlab.om +ber.law.*ar2ard.edu
-
3
INTRODUCTION
'ccordin= to Laurence Sterne5 an &n=lish !o#elist (4349E43-: T3/ 5;/0+ 1 0 <04=5 >*1;5, 04? +3/ /@6?0+145 1 0 <04=5 >*04, 0*/ 05 <63 0 <04=5 1;4 *1/*+ 05 +3/ >*//3/5 614 35 >05?/.
here>y meanin= that whate#er an indi#idual produces >y the application of his la>our$ intellect or s?ill is his property and no>ody has a ri=ht to depri#e him of such property.
he word GCopyri=ht is deri#ed from the e@pression GCopier )f 8ords first used in the conte@t$ accordin= to )@ford *ictionary in 47-. he word GCopy is presumed to date >ac? to 4<7 '.*. (appro@imate date and was used to connote a manuscript or other matter prepared for printin=. 8ord GCopy accordin= to Blac?s Law *ictionary means transript/ imitation/
reprodution of an ori=inal writin=$ paintin=$ instrument or the li?e. Copyri=ht accordin= to Blac?s Law *ictionary is t*e ri1*t in literar+ propert+ as reo1ni3ed and santioned
b+ positi2e law. %n intan1ible inorporeal ri1*t 1ranted to t*e aut*or or ori1inator of ertain literar+ or artisti prodution w*ereb+ *e is in2ested for a speified period wit* t*e sole and e4lusi2e pri2ile1e of multipl+in1 opies of t*e same and publis*in1 and sellin1 t*em.5
5 L'"R&!C& S&R!& in his no#el *e Life and #pinions of ristam S*and+. 9 %&!*R' ; "M'R *'S$ Law of 6op+ri1*t $ 1H Learnin= 1#t. Limited$ 5647.
Copyri=ht as defined in the #4ford (n1lis* 'itionar+ is an e@clusi#e ri=ht =i#en >y law for a certain term of years to an author$ composer$ etc. or his assi=nee to print$ pu>lish and sell copies of his ori=inal wor?. Copyri=ht in some form seems to ha#e >een reco=nied in ancient times. he Roman Law adud=ed that if one man wrote anythin= on the paper of another$ the writin= should >elon= to the owner of the >lan? material$ meanin= there>y the mechanical operation of writin= >y the scri>e deser#ed to recei#e satisfaction.
BRIEF HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT LAWS
US SCENARIO
ntellectual property law ori=inally e#ol#ed within the &n=lish common law$ >ut the framers of the U.S. C145++6+14 considered it so important that they specifically reco=nied it$ ma?in= >oth copyri=hts and patents federal matters ri=ht from the time the Constitution was ratified.<
'rticle 4$ Section of the ".S. Constitution includes this lan=ua=e: he Con=ress shall ha#e the power to promote the pro=ress of science and the useful arts$ >y securin= for limited times to authors and in#entors the e@clusi#e ri=ht to their respecti#e writin=s and disco#eries.7
Shortly after the Constitution was ratified$ Con=ress accepted that in#itation and enacted the first federal copyri=ht law$ he Copyri=ht 'ct of 436. hat law has >een re#ised se#eral times since$ as technolo=y created new pro>lems that could not ha#e >een anticipated >y the framers of the Constitution. he 43- Copyri=ht 'ct$ the most recent comprehensi#e re#ision of the law attempted (not always successfully to deal with such trou>lesome new pro>lem areas as photocopyin=$ audio and #ideo recordin= $ satellite communications and ca>le tele#ision.-
< +&!&LL& B&LM'S$ 8',!& )/&RB&C; $ Ma0or Priniples of Media Law$ 564< &dition. 7 homas . +ordon$ 'rthur S. Coo?fair$ /incent +. Loempio$ Brendan S. Lillis$ Patent
-undamentals for Sientists and (n1ineers $ hird &dition 46
8hate#er the unresol#ed pro>lems in copyri=ht law$ the history of Con=ressional in#ol#ement ma?es copyri=ht law fundamentally different from some of the other areas of mass media law it is an area of Federal Statutory Law$ not primarily a form of State Statutory or Common Law.3 f the pro>lems of copyri=ht law are to >e sol#ed at all$ they are resol#ed mainly >y Con=ress$ with help from the federal courts.
INDIAN SCENARIO
ndia >ein= a mem>er of two international con#entions on copyri=ht$ namely$ the Berne Con#ention for 1rotection of Literary and 'rtistic 8or?s (1aris 'ct$ 434 and the "ni#ersal Copyri=ht Con#ention$ 475. 'fter independence$ the Copyri=ht 'ct$ 473 was enacted$ to =i#e effect to the recommendations of these two con#entions. he 'ct was amended in 49$ 4<$ 45$ 4< and in 4 . he ndian Copyri=ht 'ct$ 473 is in accordance with ndias o>li=ations under the '=reement on rade Related ntellectual 1roperty Ri=hts (R1S. S/+14 !) of the C1*73+ A+, !%$' defines copyri=ht as:
I % propert+ ri1*t in an ori1inal work of aut*ors*ip su* as a
literar+/ musial/ artisti/ p*oto1rap*i/ a film work or a omputer pro1ramme) fi4ed in an+ tan1ible medium of e4pression/ 1i2in1 t*e *older t*e e4lusi2e ri1*t to reprodue/ - 8',!& )/&RB&C; $ Ma0or Priniples #f Media Law$ Harcourt Colle=e 1u>lishers$ 5664 3 >id.
44
adapt/ distribute/ perform and displa+ t*e work .J
45
WHAT COPYRIGHT LAW COVERS
+enerally$ all ?inds of creati#e endea#ors may >e copyri=hted. hat includes literary wor?s (fiction and nonEfiction$ prose and poetry$ musical wor?s (and any accompanyin= words$ dramatic wor?s (includin= music$ choreo=raphic wor?s and pictorial$ =raphic and sculptural wor?s (includin= >oth photo=raphs and paintin=s$ computer software$ maps$ architectural desi=ns$ recordin=s$ motion pictures and radio or tele#ision productions (whether dramatic or newsKdocumentary in nature.
Howe#er$ there are some #ery important e@ceptions to this rule. 1ro>a>ly the most important one for the mass media is that the news itself cannot >e copyri=hted$ althou=h a description of a news e#ent can >e copyri=hted. he first reporter to reach the scene of a plane crash$ for instance$ cannot pre#ent others from reportin= the fact that the plane crashed or the details of how it happened. he most that this reporter can deny to others is his or her account of the e#ent. )thers may tell the story in their own words. 46
hus$ it is commonplace for ournalists to rewrite each others stories. 8hene#er one reporter scores an important Soop9/ others Auic?ly pic? up the story$ carefully puttin= it in their own words and perhaps =i#in= credit to the ori=inal http:KKwww.entertainerlaw.comKpdfKcopyri=ht464.pdf$ #isited on K6
source.44 &#en thou=h this is permissi>le under copyri=ht law$ it should >e emphasied that one news medium cannot systematically remo#e all of its news from a competitor to a#oid ha#in= to employ its own news staff. o do that is called unfair competition. Systematic G &ews Pira+9 as it has >een called$ is not permissi>le.
44 d at 7. 4<
DURATION OF COPYRIGHTS
n case of ndia pursuant to the enactment of the C1*73+ (Aeen e@tended from 76 years to -6 years after the death of author 45. 8hile in case of ".S . under the !%% C1*73+ A+ $ a copyri=ht was #alid for 5 years and could >e renewed for another 5 years. T3/ !%'" C1*73+ A+ e@tended the >asic term of a copyri=ht to the authors life plus 76 years. For wor?s created anonymously or for hire$ the term was e@tended to 37 years from the date of pu>lication. For unpu>lished Gwor?s made for hire and for unpu>lished anonymous wor?s$ the term was set at 466 years from the year of Creation >y the 43- 'ct.49
n 4$ Con=ress added 56 years to all of these copyri=ht terms in the Sonny Bono Copyri=ht erm &@tension 'ct4<. herefore$ the >asic term now is the authors life plus 36 years$ or 7 years for wor?s created anonymously or for hire. "npu>lished wor?s made for hire or created anonymously are now protected for 456 years from the year of creation.
45 he Copyri=ht 'ct$ 473$ Section 55. 'n 'ssi=nment of copyri=ht >y the le=al representati#es of the author after 76 years of the death of the author was held ineffecti#e. See $*emra0 #. ar1 , 6o./ '..R 437 *el. 496. 49 43 ".S. Code 965. 4< www.copyri=ht.=o#Kle=islationKs767.pdf , visited on ")!". 47
OVERVIEW OF COPYRIGHT LAW
o summarie #ery >riefly$ the owner of a copyri=ht has the (4lusi2e Ri1*t to reproduce the copyri=hted wor?$ to create 'eri2ati2e Works >ased on it$ and to
distri>ute copies$
perform the wor? or display it to the pu>lic. 47 'nyone else who does these thin=s is =uilty of copyri=ht nfrin1ement unless what that person does Aualifies as a fair use. o pro#e an infrin=ement$ the copyri=ht owner must show Substantial Similarl+ >etween the ori=inal wor? and the alle=edly infrin=in= wor?. he owner must also show that hisKher copyri=ht is Valid and the infrin=er had %ess to the ori=inal wor? and there>y$ #iolated one of the e@clusi#e ri=hts of the author. 8hen the copyri=ht e#entually e@pires the wor? then falls into the Publi 'omain/ at that point$ the once e@clusi#e ri=hts >elon=s to e#eryone.4-
47 d at 7. 4- >id 4-
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT
INDIAN SCENARIO S/+14 $! of the C1*73+ A+, !%$' lays down #arious acts$ the doin= of $ any of
which without a licence from the owner of the copyri=ht or the statutory authority or in contra#ention of the terms of such a licence would constitute an 4*47/
the commission of which would not constitute such infrin=ement. hese are in the nature of e@ceptions to the e@clusi#e ri=hts conferred upon the copyri=ht owner and also ser#e as defences in an action for infrin=ement. he remedies for infrin=ement are laid down under S/+145 $) +1 $ of the 'ct.
)n a com>ined readin= of S/+145 $! 04? $2 $ the followin= acts amount to acts of infrin=ement of copyri=ht when committed >y a person not authoried >y licence from the owner or the competen t authority under the 'ct: 4. f the defendant reproduces the wor? in any material form (otherwise than >y way of a fair dealin= for the purposes of pri#ate use$ includin= research$ criticism or re#iew or for the purpose of reportin= current e#ents in a newspaper$ ma=aine or similar periodical or >y >roadcast$ in a cinemato=raph film or > y means of photo=raphs. 5. f the defendant ma?es a cinemato=raph film >y reproducin= or con#ertin= a su>stantial portion of the plaintiffs no#el or drama.
43
n R.G. Anand . Deluxe Films17 , F00 A, J laid down the followin= tests for infrin=ement:
4. here can >e no copyri=ht in an idea$ su>ect matter$ themes$ plots or historical or le=endary facts and #iolation of the copyri=ht in such cases is confined to the form$ manner and arran=ement and e@pression of the idea >y the author of the copyri=hted wor?. 5. 8here the same idea is >ein= de#eloped in a different manner$ it is manifest that the source >ein= common$ similarities are >ound to occur. n such a case the Courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or su>stantial aspects of the mode of e@pression adopted in the copyri=hted wor?. f the defend ants wor? is noth in= >ut a liter al imita tion of the copyri=hted wor? with some #ariations here and there it would amount to #iolation of the copyri=ht. n other words$ in order to >e actiona>le the copy must >e a su>stantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is =uilty of an act of piracy. 9. )ne of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has >een a #iolation of copyri=ht is to see if the reader$ spectator or the #iewer after ha#in= read or seen >oth the wor?s is clearly of the opinion and =ets an unmista?a>le impression that the su>seAuent wor? appears to >e a copy of the ori=inal.
43 (43 < SCC 44. 4
<. 8here the theme is the same >ut is presented and treated differently so that the su>seAuent wor? >ecomes a completely new wor?$ no Auestion of #iolation of copyri=ht arises. 7. 8here howe#er apart from the similarities appearin= in the two wor?s there are also material and >road dissimilarities which ne=ati#e the intention to copy the ori=inal and the coincidences appearin= in the two wor?s are clearly incidental no infrin=ement of the copyri=ht comes into e@istence. -. 8here$ howe#er$ the Auestion is of the #iolation of the copyri=ht of sta=e play >y a film producer or a *irector the tas ? of the plaintiff >ecomes more difficult to pro#e piracy. t is manifest that unli?e a sta=e play a film has a much >roader prospecti#e$ wider field and a >i==er >ac?=round where the defendants can >y introducin= a #ariety of incidents =i#e a colour and comple@ion different from the manner in which the copyri=hted wor? has e@pressed the idea. &#en so$ if the #iewer after seein= the film =ets a totality of impression that the film is >y and lar=e a copy of the ori=inal play$ #iolation of the copyri=ht may >e said to >e pro#ed. C147/* ! $ a leadin= international author on the su>ect$ descri>es the
necessary in=redients of a case for infrin=ement as: In
any case of infringement te !laintiff as to esta"lis not
only tat te #or$ in res!ect of #ic te com!laint is made in fact so nearly resem"les is as to "e ca!a"le of "eing an infringement, "ut also tat it as in fact "een !roduced "y te 4 6opin1er on 6op+ri1*t/ (45th &dn. 1ara <7. 4
use of tose features of is #or$ #ic "y reason of te $no#ledge, s$ill and la"our em!loyed in teir !roduction constitute
an
original
co!yrigt
#or$.
%ere
is
no
infringement unless it is esta"lised tat te defendant as !roduced a #or$ #ic "ot closely resem"les te !laintiff&s #or$ and as "een !roduced "y a direct or indirect use of tose features of te !laintiff&s #or$ in #ic co!yrigt su"sists. U.S. SCENARIO U4?/* +3/ U.S. C1*73+ A+, !%'", +3/*/ 0*/ +3*// +3475 ;33 4//?5 +1 >/ *1/? 4 1*?/* +1 145++6+/ 4*47/
4. T3/ 0/7/? 4*47/* 30? 515+04+0 5<0*+ >/+;//4 +3/ +;1 ;1*5 04?, 9. T30+ +3/ 1*73+ 5 0? 04? 1/*5 0 /7+<0+/, 1*740 ;1*.
For the su>stantial similarity test to >e met$ there must >e >oth similarity in the =eneral ideas underlyin= the two wor?s (often called the 'xtrinsic %est for similarity and similarity in copyri=hta>le aspects of the e@pression of those ideas (the Intrinsic %est for similarity. Howe#er$ after all of this le=al analysis of what constitutes su>stantial similarity is completed$ the ori=inal copyri=ht owner ultimately has to con#ince a ud=e or ury that the A/*07/ P/*514 (not ust an e@pert would see the new wor? as similar enou=h to ha#e >een pirated from the ori=inal.4
4 d at 7. 56
54
OBJECT OF COPYRIGHT LAW
he l aw o f c op yr i= ht i s i nt en de d t o p re #e nt p la = ia ri sm a nd u nf ai r e@ploitation of creati#e wor?. t is a natural e@tension of the freedom of speech and e@pression protected under A*+/ !%(!#(0# 1 +3/ C145++6+14 . f an indi#idual enoys the freedom of speech and e@pression$ he must also >e =uaranteed protection of the intellectual property in his e@pression$ >e it in the form of a literary$ dramatic$ musical or artistic wor?$ a film or a sound recordin=. Copyri=ht protection and a =uarantee of material >enefit to the creator of an ori=inal wor? is essential to ensure encoura=ement of creati#e wor? in all wal?s o f l if e s o t ha t s oc ie ty c an m a? e c ul tu ra l p ro =r es s. 56 '> se nc e o f s uc h pro te ct io n wo uld demo ral i e cr eat i# e arti st s an d ha#e a chil li n= ef fe ct on creati#e acti#ity. 'lso$ since copyri=ht protection is afforded not only to authors >ut to pu>lishers and assi=nees of such wor?$ if others were entitled to c op y t he ir w or ?s a nd p ro fi t f ro m t he ir s al e$ s uc h p er so ns w ou ld > e hesitant to in#est their resources in pu>lishin= and circulatin= ori=inal wor?s 54 . here is$ therefore$ a #ital pu> lic interest in copyri=ht protection.
G. D0/5 in o!yrigt and te )u"lic Interest =22 pro#ides that:
56Mar?
'talla$
ntelletual
Propert+
and
t*e
;ni2ersit+
s+stem
at https:KKwww.?ent.ac.u?KlawKipK81&)"4.htm$ #isited on K6
o!yrigt...
serves te !u"lic interest in freedom of ex!ression.
*y ena"ling te creator to derive a financial re#ard from te #or$, is artistic inde!endence and rigt to create and !u"lis according to is o#n #is and conscience is assured. Alternative metods of re#arding creators, suc as !atronage, #eter "y te +tate, or "y individuals, carry te ris$ of control or censorsi!. h e U4/*50 D/0*0+14 1 H6<04 R73+5, !%) 2& reco=nies not only the ri=ht to protection of ori=inal wor?s >ut also to the protection of the economic >enefits attached to it. A*+/ 2' 1 +3/ U4/*50 D/0*0+14 1 H6<04 R73+5, !%) */0?5 05:
4. &#eryone has the ri=ht freely to participate in the cultural life of the community to enoy the arts and share in scientific ad#ancement and its >enefits. 5. &#eryone has the ri=ht to the protection of the moral and material interests resultin= from any scientific$ literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
59 www.un.or=K)#er#iewKri=hts.html as visited on .).!". 59
COPYRIGHT VERSUS THE FREEDOM OF EPRESSION
S e en f ro m a d if fe re nt a n= le $ c o py ri =h t i s n ot a p os it i# e r i= ht t o d o somethin= >ut confers a ne=ati#e ri=ht$ which restricts others from copyin= the ori=inal wor? of an author .5< ' ri=ht for one person is thus a restriction on another. Since the law of copyri=ht protects the ri=ht of one person and restrains another from e@ercisin= correspondin= ri=hts$ the Auestion naturally arises as to whether the ri=ht of the copyri=ht owner infrin=es the freedom of e@pr essio n of a no th e r u n de r A*+/ !%(!#(0# 1 +3/ C145++6+14 or the freedom of >usi ness of anoth er =uara nte ed under A*+/ !%(!#(7#. "nli?e defamation$ contempt$ morality$ decency$ incitements to an offence and the li?e$ copyri=ht is not one of the specified restrictions under A*+/ !%(2#. Howe#er$ the law of copyri=ht is an incident of the =eneral law of property. 8hate#er an indi#idual produces >y the application of his la>our$ intellect or s?ill is his p roperty. he law of cop yri=ht creates a further statu to ry intan=i> le ri=ht of property in respect of such wor? if it is an ori=inal wor? 57. he ri=ht to free e@pression or free trade cannot >e stretched to mean that a person can >e entitled to >en ef it from ano th er s pr op er ty or th e frui ts of anothers la>our whether tan=i>le or intan=i>le.55<*r. 1eter *rahos$ *e ;ni2ersalit+ of ntelletual Propert+ Ri1*ts: #ri1ins and
'e2elopment , 0ueen Mary and 8estfield Colle=e (London$ "nited ;in=dom. 57 he Copyri=ht 'ct$ 473$ Section 49 (4 (a. 5-1amela Samuelson$ % -R(S< L##$ % (SS -#R &#&L(R%L 6#P>R< &-R&(M(& $ !orthwestern "ni#ersity School of Law$ /ol. 463$ !o. <$ !orthwestern "ni#ersity Law Re#iew.
5<
57
THE FAIR USE DILEMMA
Fair use is a doctrine in "nited States copyri=ht law that allows limited use of copyri=hted material without reAuirin= permission from the ri=hts holders$ such as use for scholarship or re#iew.53 he competin= interests of the ri=ht holders and the users of copyri=ht wor? rests on a delicate >alance and Copyri=ht law maintains it with the help of fair use or fair dealin= pro#isions. GFair dealin= is a formulation ?nown to urisdictions that e#ol#ed out of the British common law copyri=ht system.5 hese pro#isions pro#ide protection for materials ta?en for research or study$ criticism or re#iew$ reportin= the news and for purposes related to udicial proceedin=s.5
INDIAN SCENARIO
n ndia$ Section 75 of the Copyri=ht 'ct$ 473 e@plains what all are not le=ally infrin=ements. he section >e=ins with fair dealin= as one of the e@ceptions of infrin=ement. 'ccordin=ly$ ?fair dealin1 wit* a literar+/ dramati/ musial or artisti
work for t*e purposes of i) resear* or pri2ate stud+@ or ii) ritiism or re2iew/ w*et*er of t*at work or of an+ ot*er workA does not constitute infrin=ement. he ma?in= of not more than three copies of a >oo? (includin= a pamphlet$ sheet of music$ map$ chart or plan >y or under the direction of the person in char=e of a pu>lic 53 *'/* S. 8&L;)82 $ State of t*e State: s *ere % -uture for State 'ilution Laws $ 5< Santa Clara Computer N Hi=h ech. L.%. -4$ -5 (566 5 6ampbell 2. %uff!Rose Musi $ 44< S. Ct. 44-<$ 44- (4<. 5
li>rary for the use of the li>rary if such >oo? is not a#aila>le for sale in ndia$ the reproduction$ for the purpose of research or pri#ate study or with a #iew to pu>lication$ of an unpu>lished literary$ dramatic or musical wor? ?ept in a li>rary$ museum or other institution to which the pu>lic has access: &la>oratin= the conte@t of studies$ the Section further holds that t*e reprodution of a
literar+ work...i) b+ a tea*er or a pupil in t*e ourse of instrution or ii) as part of t*e Cuestion to be answered in an e4amination@ or iii) in answer to su* Cuestion.9 (Sec. 75 (4 (h of Copyri=ht 'ct also comes under e@ception to copyri=ht infrin=ement. he most important Auestion in#ol#ed here is that when such a usa=e amounts to infrin=ement. n Rames* 6*aud*ar+ , #rs. #. %li. Mo*d 5D / it was held that:
?Verbatim liftin1 of t*e te4t to t*e e4tent of op+in1 t*e omplete set of e4erise and t*e ke+ to su* e4erises an in no manner be termed as a re2iew/ ritiism or a 1uide to t*e ori1inal work and t*us it amounts to infrin1ement.A
Similarly$ in S+ndiate Press of ;ni2ersit+ of 6ambrid1e , %nr. 2. $asturi Lal , Sons 5E$ which also in#ol#ed the #er>atim liftin= of the te@t to the e@tent of copyin= the complete set of e@ercise and the ?ey to the e@ercise. 'nd hence$ the court o>ser#ed that the act of the defendants could not >e termed to >e a re#iew$ criticism or a =uide to the ori=inal wor?. he Court also opined that:
96 'R 4-7 %N ; 464. 94 566- (95 1C <3 (*el. 53
?W*ile t*e uni2ersal nature of knowled1e and its dissemination freel+ is a appro2in1 onept but it must not trans1ress ri1*ts of an aut*or 1uaranteed b+ t*e 6op+ri1*t %t. *ose w*o possess t*e abilit+ to reate also possess t*e ri1*t to assert t*at t*eir reation be reo1ni3ed and identified wit* t*em. *e+ *a2e t*e ri1*t to prolaim t*at no ot*er person infrin1es upon t*eir laim of ori1inalit+ and t*e ri1*t to limit t*e use and pre2ent t*e abuse of t*eir reation.A
U.S. SCENARIO
his is a #ery important e@ception to the =eneral rule that copyri=hted material cannot >e used without consent. t is particularly si=nificant to the news media$ which is in the >usiness of con#eyin= information$ some of it >ased on copyri=hted wor? .95 Federal copyri=ht law states that an indi#idual other than the copyri=ht owner can use a copyri=hted wor? without permission if the use would >e considered a Ofair use.O99 he Fair "se *octrine is$ in effect$ a compromise. t represents a >alance >y lawma?ers of the need to encoura=e scientific and cultural pro=ress >y ma?in= sure creators =et credit for what they do a=ainst societyPs need for readily accessi>le information. Reco=niin= the inherent conflict in these two =oals$ fair use stri#es to find a reasona>le middle =round. 8hether or not the use of a copyri=hted wor? >y a nonEowner would >e considered a Ofair useO is not always an easy call. here is no >lac? and white ruleQ each case must >e e@amined on its own. ndeed$ it is this lac? of a hard and fast standard that has lead some 95 Circular 4 (Copyri=ht Basics (May 5645$ ".S. Copyri=ht )ffice$ at pa=e 9 . 99 43 ".S.C. 463. 5
to la>el fair use Othe metaphysics of law.O !e#ertheless$ as one of the countryPs leadin= e@perts on copyri=ht law has said: O!inetyEnine times out of a hundred a scholar who wants to Auote a reasona>le portion of a copyri=hted wor? can do so without o>tainin= permission as lon= as the Auotation does not constitute a su>stitute for the ori=inal.O 9< Courts loo? at four factors to determine if the use of a copyri=hted wor? is a fair use: 97
*e purpose and *arater of t*e use. !onEcommercial uses for purposes li?e news reportin=$ teachin=$ criticism or commentary are more li?ely to >e fair.
*e nature of t*e op+ri1*ted work. "ses of wor?s containin= mostly factual material li?e maps or >io=raphies are more li?ely to >e fair than uses of hi=hly creati#e and ori=inal wor?s li?e no#els and cartoons.
e used fairly. he test is >oth Auantitati#e (how many words of a 566$666 word >oo? are reproducedD and Aualitati#e (usin= the OcoreO or OheartO of a wor? EE no matter how small EE is less li?ely to >e a fair use.
*e effet of t*e use on t*e ommerial 2alue of t*e op+ri1*ted work. his is the most important factor .9- f consumers are li?ely to >uy the use as a su>stitute for the ori=inal$ it pro>a>ly will not Aualify as a fair use. 9< L. R ', 1'&RS)! (Broc? 1rofessor of Law at the "ni#ersity of +eor=ia$ cited >y Stowe$ *.$ =ust 'o t:
he most important factor is usually the first$ which courts use to determine whether the use is Itransformati#e.J 93 he more the use ItransformsJ the copyri=hted wor? >y addin= new #alue EE such as attachin= new meanin=$ information or aesthetics EE the less wei=ht other factors (such as commercial use will >e =i#en and the more li?ely the use will >e la>eled a fair use.9 ' wor? that ust in#ol#es the same material >ut in a new form$ thou=h$ is not Itransformati#eJ >ecause it does not add anythin= to the copyri=hted wor?.9 For e@ample$ compilin= news stories from the print edition of the !ew ,or? imes to post on a >lo=$ >ut ma?in= no other chan=es$ is not transformati#e. Howe#er$ copyin= parts of !ew ,or? imes stories into a >lo= post critiAuin= their co#era=e of a particular topic would li?ely >e transformati#e. Fair use therefore authories the use of limited amounts of copyri=hted wor?s for purposes li?e news reportin= and education so lon= as the use does not destroy the commercial #alue of the copyri=hted wor?. hus$ a student newspaper can pro>a>ly reproduce a sin=le photo=raph EE particularly one that is reduced in sie from the ori=inal EE of the co#er of Ohe Fault in )ur StarsO to illustrate a re#iew of the >oo? without o>tainin= %ohn +reenPs (or his pu>lishin= companyPs permission. )ther fair uses pro>a>ly include: use of a sin=le frame from a comic strip to illustrate a news article reportin= the retirement of the stripPs creatorQ reprintin= a %oe Camel ad#ertisement ta?en from a national ma=aine to illustrate a story on the effect of ci=arette ad#ertisin= on minorsQ reprintin= two lines from the senior class son= as part of a year>oo? editorPs Ohe 93 6ampbell 2. %uff!Rose Musi/ n.$ 746 ".S. 7-$ 73 (4<. 9 -eist Publiations n. 2. Rural elep*one Ser2ie$ < ".S. 9<6 (44. 9 6ariou 2. Prine$ 34< F.9d -< (5nd Cir. 5649.
96
,ear +one ByO column. But usin= an entire comic strip or %oe Camel ad#ertisement on senior class Eshirts or printin= all the lyrics from the senior class son= on the inside co#er of the year>oo? will pro>a>ly not >e fair uses. LEADING CASE LAWS
4. *asic *oo$s . in$o-s Gra!ics or! .FD By the 46s another issue in#ol#in= classroom copyin= had >ecome contro#ersial$ that was the use of course pac?a=es in colle=e classes. n 44 a federal court ruled that ;in?os +raphics$ a maor producer of these course pac?ets$ had to pay royal ties for #irtually all of the copyri=hted materials (such as ma=aine or ournal articles and >oo? chapters included in these custom compilation of pre#iously pu>lished materials. he court held that such lar=eEscale cop yin= was not a fair use as the result was that companies li?e ;in?os and colle=e >oo?stores were now char=in= hi=her prices for course pac?ets so royalties had to >e paid to each copyri=ht owner.
5. )rinceton /niversity )ress . 0icigan Document +ervices 1 n this case$ the courts 5E4 maority opinion =a#e teachers and copyin= ser#ices complete ri=ht to copy ma=aine and ournal articles as well as lar=e parts of >oo?s for inclusion in course pac?ets >y holdin= that such copyin= is a fair use$ and not amountin= to copyri=ht infrin=ement. 'rmed with this decision$ many
<6 37 F. Supp. 4755. <4 3< F.9d 475. 94
copyin= ser#ices =eared up for a >onana of royaltyEfree copyin=. But then the cele>ration ended as the full panel of ud=es sittin= on the si@th circuit #oted to set aside the earlier rulin= and rehear the case. he ud=es then #oted E7 to o#erturn the earlier decision and ruled that lar=eEscale copyin= for course pac?ets was indeed an infrin=ement$ and not a fair use.
&.
Williams , Wilkins #. ;.S.FG ! his case was initiated >y a pu>lishin= house whose medical ournals were >ein= photocopied on a massi#e scale >y federally funded medical li>raries$ so that the li>raries could a#oid purchasin= additional copies. he pu>lishin= house lost its case as in 439 a federal court said that the dissemination of medical ?nowled=e was so important that this copyin= was a fair use. he case was appealed to the ".S. Supreme Court$ >ut the decision of the federal court remained unchan=ed.
COPYRIGHT LAW I+ 3I+ PUBLIC=S R IGHT TO K NOW
!.
Rosemont (nterprises #. Random y >illionaire industrialist Howard Hu=hes was tryin= to pre#ent pu>lication of a >io=raphy a>out Hu=hes$ who intensely disli?ed pu>licity. Rosemont learned that the >io=rapher was relyin= hea#ily on information ta?en from se#eral old loo? ma=aine articles a>out Hu=hes. he company Auic?ly >ou=ht the copyri=ht on those articles and then sou=ht an inunction
<5 <3 F.5d 49<7$ <56 ".S. <9 9-- F.5d 969. 95
to pre#ent pu>lication of the new >io=raphy as an infrin=ement of the copyri=hted articles. ' trial court ruled in Rosemonts fa#or$ >ut the federal appellate court re#ersed that decision$ holdin= that a copyri=ht owner had no ri=ht to$ in effect$ copyri=ht history. he appellate court noted that the ma=aine articles were only a fraction of the len=th of the >oo? and that there had >een e@tensi#e independent research for the >oo?. he court >rushed aside the ar=ument that the >oo?$ li?e the ori=inal copyri=hted ma=aine articles$ was aimed at a popular mar?et and was not merely an instance of scholarly criticism (somethin= that earlier court decisions had reco=nied as a fair use. "ltimately$ the court ruled that there was a le=itimate pu>lic interest in the doin=s of the rich and powerful$ and that this interest outwei=hs the copyri=ht consideration in a case such as this one. Random House was allowed to pu>lish its >oo? a>out Howard Hu=hes without incurrin= lia>ility for a copyri=ht infrin=ement.
2.
ime n. #. Bernard eis %ssoiatesFF ! his case in#ol#ed an amateur photo=raphers film on the assassination of 1resident %ohn F. ;ennedy in 4-9. he hi=hly unusual and re#ealin= film was purchased >y ime nc.$ and pu>lished in Life ma=aine and$ of course$ it was copyri=hted. Later$ author homas hompson who was pu>lishin= a >oo? ad#ocatin= a new theory a>out the assassination$ Si4 Seonds in 'allas. Bernard +eis$ the >oo? pu>lisher$ )ffered to pay Life a royalty eAual to the entire net profits from the >oo? in return for permission to use still photo=raphs made from the
<< 59 F. Supp. 496$ 4-. 99
copyri=hted film$ which was central to hompsons theory. Life ma=aines refused. he >oo? pu>lisher then hired an artist to ma?e charcoal s?etches from the copyri=hted photo=raphs$ and these appeared in the >oo?. ime nc.$ sued for copyri=ht infrin=ement. he federal court said the use of charcoal drawin=s instead of the photo=raphs themsel#es did not eliminated the copyri=ht infrin=ement$ >ut the court also pointed to the le=itimate pu>lic interest in the assassination of a president and said this was a fair use of the copyri=hted pictures. o rule otherwise would pre#ent a full pu>lic discussion of the contro#ersial issues raised >y 1resident ;ennedys assassination.
9<
COPYRIGHT LAW AND INTERNET
ne#ita>ly$ Auestions of copyri=ht ownership in cy>erspace ha#e >ecome contro#ersial as millions of people >e=an accessin=$ the nternet durin= the 46s. 'lthou=h there is much uncertainty in this newly de#elopin= area of the law$ a few principles are clear .<7 he most fundamental principle is that a copyri=ht is still a copyri=ht$ re=ardless of the means$ >y which a copyri=hted wor? is pu>lished$ performed or distri>uted (althou=h those three le=al terms may ha#e to >e redefined in the cy>erspace a=e. <- 'lso the fact that a document is posted online somewhere without a copyri=ht notice does not pro#e that the document is in the pu>lic domain. "nder current law$ no recently created wor? falls into the pu>lic domain unless the creator or other copyri=ht owner e@pressly places it in the pu>lic domain$ f there is no declaration that a wor? is in the pu>lic domain$ the copyri=ht owner could claim copyri=ht infrin=ement if heKshe disappro#es of the way someone uses the wor?. Howe#er$ once a wor? is in the pu>lic domain$ its there for all purposes. he statement that a wor? is in the pu>lic domain$ >ut only for no nEcommercial purposes$ is not #alid. f a wor? is in the pu>lic domain$ anyone can use it for any purpose. )n the other hand$ a copyri=ht owner can certainly retain the copyri=ht and
<7 Jonathan L. Zittrain, The Future of the Internet -- And How to Stop It (Yale University Press & Penguin UK 2008).
<- ,in Harn Lee / 6op+ri1*t and -reedom of (4pression: % Literature Re2iew a#aila>le at https:KKenodo.or=KrecordK4495KfilesKCR&'eE8or?in=E1aperE5647E6<.pdf$ #isited on 46K6
merely =rant others a license to use the wor? for certain specified nonEcommercial purposes.<3
n 47$ a tas? force under the direction of B*6/ L/3<04 $ the U.S. 1<<5514/* 1 0+/4+5 04? +*0?/<0*5 $ released a 5<Epa=e W3+/ P0/*= discussin= the
copyri=ht$ trademar? and patent implications of cy>erspace. he paper proposed a num>er of chan=es in copyri=ht law that would increase the protection for corporate copyri=ht owners at the e@pense of writers$ artists$ li>rarians$ and the =eneral nternetEsurfin= pu>lic. 'mon= other thin=s$ the tas? force proposed: 4. o eliminate the F*5+ S0/ D1+*4/$ which allowed the >uyer of a copyri=hted wor? to resell it or lend it to others without ha#in= to pay additional royalties (this could undercut the a>ility of li>raries to >uy one copy of a >oo? or ma=aine and then lend it to patrons as well as clarifyin= the ri=ht of copyri=ht owners to pre#ent le=itimate purchasers of a wor? from distri>utin= it in cy>erspace$ 2. o clarify the principle that the di=ital transmission or stora=e of a wor? in a
computer$ e#en if only temporarily$ is copyin= andKor distri>ution of the wor?$ &. o outlaw de#ices desi=ned to defeat antiEcopyin= technolo=ies and$
<3 Marlin H. Smith, The Limits Of Copyright: Property, Parody, And The
Public
Domain,
availableat http://scholarship.law.due.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi! article"#$$%&conte't"dl(, visited on )*/*+/). 9-
). o allow li>raries to ma?e only three copies of a di=ital wor?$ with one
a#aila>le for pu>lic #iewin= in the li>rary (>ut not for >orrowin= or copyin= while the other two >ein= ?ept in a closed pu>lic records.
n 4$ in the case of Hualit+ $in1 'istributors #. L9 %n3a Resear*
nternational F8 / the Supreme Court sidestepped the tas? forces proposal to eliminate the First Sale *octrine$ not only upholdin= it >ut rulin= that it allows a discounter to ha#e 'mericanEmade products that are sold al lower prices o#erseas and >rin= them >ac? into this country as G=ray mar?et =oods$ undercuttin=
listEprice retailers.
n 4$ Con=ress passed the D7+0 M/446< C1*73+ A+ $ a farEreachin= new law that e@panded on the T//1<<640+145 A+, !%%" =i#in= >oth copyri=ht owners and nternet ser#ice pro#iders (S1s e@tensi#e le=al protection >ut at the e@pense of those who posted and used material on the nternet$ includin= li>rarians$ educators$ we>site owners and the nternetEsurfin= pu>lic. T3/ D7+0 M/446< C1*73+ A+, !%% had many pro#isions$ amon= other thin=s$ it >rou=ht the "nited States into
compliance with the pro#isions of two 8orld ntellectual 1roperty )r=aniation (81) treaties si=ned se#eral years a=o.<
< 44 S.Ct. 4457. < -nternational ureau o 0-12, The Advantages Of Adherence To The
Wipo Copyright Treaty Wct! And The Wipo Performances And Phonograms Treaty Wppt!,availableat. 93
T3/ D7+0 M/446< C1*73+ A+, !%% also esta>lished new rules =o#ernin=
di=ital copyri=hts$ =i#in= additional copyri=ht protection to di=ital renderin=s of motion pictures$ #ideos$ sound recordin=s$ photo=raphy and =raphics. he act also >anned many technolo=ies that could e#ade authoried access and copyEpre#ention schemes.
1erhaps the most contro#ersial features of the D7+0 M/446< C1*73+ A+ was the handlin= of alle=ed copyri=ht infrin=ements on the nternet. he law e@empted nternet ser#ice pro#iders from lia>ility for what their su>scri>ers may post on the net if they acted Auic?ly to shut down sites containin= alle=ed infrin=ements. ' copyri=ht owner merely notified the S1 that material on a
particular site was a copyri=ht
infrin=ement$ pro#idin= a statement that heKshe had a G11? F0+3 B//= that the use of the disputed material was an infrin=ement. n effect$ this allowed copyri=ht owners to shut down we>sites without e#er =oin= to court to pro#e that an infrin=ement has in fact occurred. nternet pro#iders were e@empted from copyri=ht lia>ility if they acted as copyri=ht enforcers. 's and when they failed to play that role$ they were held lia>le for any infrin=ement that may occur.
Meanwhile$ a num>er of indi#idual B6/+4 B10*? S5+/< $ ( B B S # owners faced lawsuits >ecause copyri=hted materials were posted on their systems and could >e
76 ' Bulletin >oard system$ or BBS$ is a computer system runnin= software that allows users to dial into the system o#er a phone line (or elnet and$ usin= a terminal pro=ram$ perform functions such as downloadin= software and data$ uploadin= data$ readin= news$ and e@chan=in= messa=es with other users. 9
downloaded. Se#eral of these cases in#ol#ed copyri=hted software or di=itied ima=es.
LEADING CASE LAWS
4. )lay"oy 'nter!rises . +anfili!!o 41 n this case a B6/+4 B10*? S5+/< ( B B S # owner was successfully sued >y the 1lay>oy &nterprises for ha#in=
436 copyri=hted ima=es from 1lay>oy pu>lications a#aila>le online. 1lay>oy a==ressi#ely pursued the owners of nternet sites containin= ima=es owned >y 1lay>oy. n 4$ 1lay>oy won the lar=est statutory dama=e award in the history of 'merican copyri=ht law$ a 9.3< million ud=ment a=ainst the owner of a site that alle=edly distri>uted 3$<37 1lay>oyEowned photo=raphs o#er the nternet.
5. )lay"oy 'nter!rises . %erri 5elles 42 1lay>oy also sued erri 8elles$ the 44 1lay>oy Ma=aine 1laymate of the year$ in an attempt to ?eep her from identifyin= herself >y that title on her we>site. Howe#er$ a federal ud=e refused to =rant a preliminary inunction in that case$ holdin= that 1lay>oy was unli?ely to pre#ail in court e#en thou=h 1laymate of the ,ear is a re=istered trademar? of 1lay>oy. he ud=e said that a title such as 1laymate of the ,ear >ecomes a part of a persons identity$ li?e >ein= an 'cademy 'ward winner or a former Miss 'merica or a Heisman rophy winner. o 74 4 ".S. *ist. Le@is <339. 75 3 F. Supp.5d 46. 9
indicate this status on a we>site is a fair use under trademar? law. 1lay>oy appealed and the ninth circuit ".S. Court of 'ppeals affirmed the ud=es rulin= without pu>lishin= an opinion.
'nother contro#ersy arose when the N0+140 W*+/*5 U414 (NWU# $ an or=aniation that represented a>out 9$666 freelance writers$ sued corporations that owned se#eral maor newspapers and ma=aines as well as the Le@isE!e@is computer data>ase$ alle=in= that these lar=e corporations routinely posted !8" mem>ers wor?s without copyri=ht clearances. !8" contended that the normal authoriation to pu>lish a wor? in printed form does not carry with it the automatic ri=ht to distri>ute the same wor? in electronic form. ' federal ud=e reected the !8"s claims in 43.
Still other confusin= copyri=ht dilemmas ha#e arisen in cy>erspace. )ne that may ha#e no solution is GChainEeEMail i.e. the common practice of forwardin= messa=E es to lar=e lists of friends$ clients or customers. Here the system is that someone puts a copyri=hted wor? online$ often droppin= the ori=inal >yline and the copyri=ht notice$ thereafter$ he or she sends it to a few doen friends$ who then send it to others >efore lon=$ thousands or millions of people recei#es that messa=e.
<6
MORAL RIGHTS AND COPYRIGHT LAW
he term M1*0 R73+5= is a translation of the French term D*1+ <1*0= and refers to the a>ility of authors to control the e#entual fate of their wor?s. 'n author is said to ha#e the moral ri=ht to control his wor?. 79 he concept of moral ri=hts thus relies on the connection >etween an author and his creation. Moral ri=hts protect the reputation of the creator$ rather than purely monetary$ #alue of a wor? to its creator. hey are >ased on a >elief that artistic creation is somethin= more than an attempt to earn a li#elihood. he creati#e act results in a special relationship >etween the creator and his wor? >oth the creati#e impulse and the wor? are of #alue to society throu=h his wor?. By reco=niin= these aspects moral ri=hts >rin= a cultural focus to copyri=ht law7<. Moral ri=hts appear to ha#e ori=inated in F*04/ in the !%+3 /4+6* $ premised on the wor? of the +erman philosophers K04+ and H/7/. Commentators ha#e pointed to se#eral catalysts to the creation of moral ri=hts$ from the fall of the 'ncient R=ime$ the rise of the artist as entrepreneur$ free of aristocratic or church patrona=e$ to the Romantic emphasis on the ori=inal creation of the lonely =enius 77. Moral ri=hts #ary in scope$ >ut they all reco=nie certain ri=hts in an artists wor? that are distinct from traditional property ri=hts and that rely less on economic rationales than on the ri=ht to the continued control of the artists creati#e personality throu=h control o#er
79 Michael Seadle$ (5665 O6op+ri1*t in t*e networked world: moral ri1*ts O$ Li>rary Hi ech$ /ol. 56 ss: 4$ pp.45< E 453 7< C>/*.0;.30*0*?./?6*1/*+>*0*<1*0*0+1450*+/5256>").? as 2isited on $.).!". <4
the art itself.7- Moral ri=hts ac?nowled=e that an artist has$ in addition to an economic interest in his reputation$ a creati#e persona that is inected into the wor? of art at creation and which remains a part of the wor? despite his physical relinAuishment of the o>ect to others.73 UNITED K INGDOM SCENARIO
he &n=lish tradition has manifested certain s?epticism towards claims that authors deser#e special protection in law. he "nited ;in=dom +o#ernment ac?nowled=ed the importance of moral ri=hts when it effected a maor o#erhaul of C1*73+ L0; 4 !% (C1*73+, D/5745 04? P0+/4+5 A+, !%# $. t also accepted the =eneral conclusion of
that e@istin= laws were inadeAuate to comply with B/*4/ C14/4+14 1* P*1+/+14 1 L+/*0* 04? A*+5+ W1*5, !%'! and e@press statutory ri=hts were necessary.
'doptin= a typically British le=islati#e style$ a detailed and comple@ moral ri=hts code was fa#ored in preference to a simple restatement of the =eneral principles set out in A*+/ " of B/*4/ C14/4+14 1* P*1+/+14 1 L+/*0* 04? A*+5+ W1*5, !%'! $% which would ha#e left the courts with too free a hand to wor? out how they
7- 3aren 4. Crabbs, The "uture of Authors# and Artists# $oral %ights in
America, $ 5657L4 H-LLS . Ass89 . );, )< =)<<$>. 73 %ill R. 'pple>aum$ *e Visual %rtists Ri1*ts %t of EIID: %n %nal+sis Based on t*e
-ren* 'roit Moral $ 'M. ". %. !PL L. N 1)LP, 49$ 43 (45. 7 www.ariadne.ac.u?Kissuelication thereof$ nationals of the other country and are not ha>itually resident in one of the countries of the "nion. f the country of first pu>lication a#ails itself of this ri=ht$ the other countries of the "nion shall not >e reAuired to =rant to wor?s thus su>ected to special treatment a wider protection than that =ranted to them in the country of first
<5
should apply. he 'ct sets out the ri=hts$ the conditions which must >e satisfied in order for them to >e acAuired$ their scope and$ in particular$ the numerous e@ceptions and Aualifications to them which were desi=ned to satisfy sectional interests. ' careful e@amination of these ri=hts is necessary in order to determine whether they confer =reater protection for moral ri=hts than that e@isted >efore and whether or not they match up to A*+/ " 1 +3/ B/*4/ C14/4+14, !%'! or to the eAui#alent moral ri=hts laws of ci#il law countries. here are four ri=hts in the new moral ri=hts code$ they are:
4. T3/ *73+ +1 >/ ?/4+/? 05 06+31* 1* ?*/+1* (+3/ *73+ 1 0+/*4+ 1* 0++*>6+14#,
5. T3/ *73+ +1 1>/+ +1 ?/*170+1* +*/0+
9. T3/ *73+ 41+ +1 >/ 05/ 0++*>6+/? 05 06+31* 1* ?*/+1* 04?,
<. T3/ *73+ +1 *0 1 /*+04 31+17*035 04? <5.
pu>lication. (5 !o restrictions introduced >y #irtue of the precedin= para=raph shall affect the ri=hts$ which an author may ha#e acAuired in respect of a wor? pu>lished in a country of the "nion >efore such restrictions were put into force. (9 he countries of the "nion which restrict the =rant of copyri=ht in accordance with this 'rticle shall =i#e notice thereof to the *irector +eneral of the 8orld ntellectual 1roperty )r=aniation (hereinafter desi=nated as Othe *irector +eneralO >y a written declaration specifyin= the countries in re=ard to which protection is restricted$ and the restrictions to which ri=hts of authors who are nationals of those countries are su>ected. he *irector +eneral shall immediately communicate this declaration to all the countries of the "nion.
<9
INDIAN SCENARIO
he copyri=ht law in ndia is Auite old and the ndian udiciary$ in spite of many challen=es$ had always stri#ed for protectin= the ri=hts of authors. Some of the a>o#ementioned moral ri=hts ha#e statutory reco=nition in ndia under S/+14 $' of the I4?04 C1*73+ A+, !%$'. his section pro#ides an e@ception to the rule that after an
author has parted with his ri=hts in fa#our of a pu>lisher or other person$ the latter alone is entitled to sue in respect of infrin=ement. he author retains the special ri=hts e#en after the assi=nment of the copyri=ht. he principle underlyin= this section is that dama=e to the reputation of an author is somethin= apart from infrin=ement of the wor? itself.
LEADING CASE LAWS !.
0annu *andari
.
ala
i$as
)ictures ()6
4?0.1<0;/*0*+/52&0&.3+< *1?6/? +3/ <1+14 +6*/ +amay *73+5 1 +3/ 04+=5 41/ Aa! */6+0+14 1* 3/* 41/ Aa!
R/!2 "
td. 3++:;;;./>T3/
?//4?04+
30?
i Dara 64?/* 05574
a *unty. T3/ 04+ 0
a *unty 04? 56><++/? +30+ 3/* <07/ ;16?
>/ 1;/*/? ?1;4 >/1*/ +3/ 5+6?/4+5, */5/0*3 5310*5 04? +3/ +/*0* ;1*? +3/ ?5+1*+/? /*514 1 3/* 41/ ;16? >/ 01;/? +1 >/ */5/4+/? +3*1673 +3/ < 04? +365, 51673+ /*<04/4+ 464+14 07045+ +5 5*//447 04? /@3>+14.
T3/ 06+31*=5 1>/+145 ;/*/:
-6 'R 43 *el 49. <<
(1# T3/*/ ;05 0 3047/ 1 ++/,
(2# S1//4 3047/?<1?/? ;33 ;/*/ 41+ */5/4+ 4 +3/ 41/ 04?,
(8# T3/ /4? 1 +3/ < ;05 ?/*/4+ *1< +30+ 1 +3/ 41/.
T3/ C16*+ 3/? +30+:
I+ ?1/5 41+ 5+ 05 0 5/4+4/ (760*?# 1 6> <1*05. I+ 0441+ <15/ +5 /;5 14 5/@ 1* +5 ?/+145 4 +3/ ;1*5 1 0*+. S1/ ?//+/? *1< +3/ < 05 +3/ ?5+1*+/? +3/ 30*0+/*5 04? +365 0441+ >/ ?/5*>/? 05 4//550* 3047/5 1* +3/ 3047/ 4 +3/ / <0?/ 4 +3/ /4? 1 +3/ <. R/70*?47 ++/, +3/ 40
*unty 5316? 4? 0 0/ 4 +3/ ++/
1 +3/ <.
T365, +3/ C16*+ 63/? +3/ <1*0 *73+5 1 +3/ 06+31* 04? +3/ ?/514 1 +3/ C16*+ 4?0+/? +3/ /; +30+ +3/ < *1?6/* 0441+ <0/ 04 644//550* 3047/5 4 +3/ 1*740 ;1* 1 +3/ 06+31* ;+316+ 35 1* 3/* /*<5514.
2.
.).0.
+undram
.
Rattan
)ra$asan
0andir 3++:;;;./>-
4?0.1<0;/*0*+/52&0&.3+< - R/!& "! T3/ 04+ 04? 35 1-06+31*5 /4+/*/? 4+1 04 07*//53 +3/* ;1*5. T3/ 04+5 0
-4 'R 49 *el <-4. <7
+30+ +3/ ?//4?04+5 <6+0+/? 04? ?5+1*+/? +3/ 1*740 ;1*5 > 6>5347 0*165 >115 4 <1?/? 1*<. T3/ ?//4?04+5 0?<++/? +3/ <1?0+145 <0?/. T3/ 04+5 */1/? +3/ 07*//
T3/ C16*+ 3/? +30+:
95it te revocation of agreement "y te !laintiffs, no rigt #as left #it te defendants to continue to !u"lis and sell te #or$s. Interim in:unction #as also granted.; T3/*/1*/, +3/ 146514 +30+ 11;5 05 0* 05 I4?04 15+14 5 14/*4/? 5 +30+ +3/ <1*0 *73+5 */<04 ;+3 +3/ 06+31* 04? 0*/ /41*/0>/ //4 0 +3/ /141< *73+5 30/ >//4 /45/?05574/?.
U.S. SCENARIO
he de>ate o#er moral ri=hts >ecame heated in ".S. when Con=ress #oted to chan=e ".S. copyri=ht law to ma?e it compati>le with the reAuirements of the Berne Con#ention more or less.-5 "nder 'merican law$ the copyri=ht owner (who is often not the creator of the wor? has the a>solute ri=ht to chan=e a literary or artistic wor? without the consent of the ori=inal author or artist. But under A*+/ " of the B/*4/ C14/4+14, !%'! each mem>er country must reco=nie moral ri=hts$ there>y =i#in= the ori=inal artist the ri=ht to pre#ent the wor? from >ein= chan=ed without his consent.-9
-5 '. Fraier$ #n Moral Ri1*ts/ %rtist!6entered Le1islation/ and t*e Role of t*e State in
%rt Worlds: &otes on Buildin1 a Soiolo1+ of 6op+ri1*t Law $ 36 "L. L .R&#. 949$ 947 (47. <-
he moral ri=hts Auestion has always >een a maor o>stacle$ to 'merican participation in the B/*4/ C14/4+14, !%'! : ".S$ copyri=ht owners stron=ly oppose any reco=nition of moral ri=hts$ while =roups of authors and artists want such ri=hts. he moral ri=hts issue has recei#ed considera>le pu>licity recently in connection with the coloriation of older >lac? and white motion pictures. Many of the actors and directors who made these mo#ies #iew coloriation as a. sacrile=e (#iolation li?e mutilatin= a classic paintin=. But the copyri=ht owners see coloriation as a way to ma?e the films more appealin= to a new =eneration of mo#ie #iewers. C0>/ E4+*/*/4/6* T/? T6*4/* had >een at the center of this contro#ersy >ecause his company coloried almost the entire M+M li>rary of classic films. He purchased the copyri=hts to these films in the midE46s and then had them coloried$ somethin= he had e#ery ri=ht to do$ despite the >itter o>ections of many actors and directors.
For the most part$ Con=ress sided with urner and other copyri=ht owners$ refusin= to reco=nie moral ri=hts. 8hen Con=ress #oted to ha#e the "nited States oin the Berne Con#ention$ 434 still without reco=niin= moral ri=hts that action stirred a contro#ersy amon= copyri=ht lawyers. Some contended that si=nin= the Berne Con#ention automatically =a#e le=al reco=nition to moral ri=hts in the "nited States$ despite Con=ress efforts to sidestep the issue. )thers pointed out that the 4 law specifically said oinin= the Berne Con#ention did not chan=e 'merican law on this point and there was also the Auestion of how the "nited States could le=ally si=n a treaty while steadfastly refusin= to reco=nie one of its maor pro#isions. -9 Carol +. Ludolph N +ary &. Merenstein$ %ut*orsJ Moral Ri1*ts in t*e ;nited States
and t*e Berne 6on2ention$ 4 S&S)! L. R&#. 564$ 56< (4 <3
<
CONCLUSION
+i#en the ma=nitude and dimensions that piracy ha s a ttai ned in rec ent time s$ t h e o n l y e f fe c ti # e s o lu t io n w o u ld > e > y co nso lid at ed ac tion thro u= h selfE re=ul ation . M easur es that could >e ta?en to clamp down on piracy in ndia and a>road include: (a )r=anied action from the entire industry includin= throu=h the settin= up of a piracy pre#ention fund to tac?le piracy >oth in ndia and o#erseas throu=h liti=ation$ throu=h =o#ernmental and inter=o#ernmental coEoperation in ensurin= enforcement of copyri=ht laws. )ne possi>ility for the purposes of au=mentin= resources for this fund is to =et the =o#ernment to contri>ute a small fraction of the ser#ice ta@ collection from the entertainment and media sector towards the P*0 P*//4+14 F64?. 's the =o#ernment itself loses out on hu=e amounts of re#enue on account of piracy and it would t h e r e f o r e m a ? e p r a c t i c a l e c o n o m i c s e n s e t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e = o# er nm en t i ts el f c on tr i> ut es t o t he p ir ac y pr e# en tion fu nd. h is fun d sh oul d >e uti li e d to war ds in it iat in = liti=a tion >o th in ndi a and in forei=n countries a=ainst the offenders. (> 't the international le#el$ particularly in countries such as the "nited ;in=d om and the "S ' where piracy is rampant measures could >e ta?en >y ndian copyri= ht societies with the coEoperation of their international counterparts.
<
(c 8ithin ndia itself$ strin=ent re=ulations are necessary throu=h a more effecti#e enforcement of the copyri=ht laws$ li?e for e@ample T3/ C0>/ T//514 N/+;1*5 (R/760+14# A+, !%%$ $ which has >een in force for
o#er ten years already$ >ut as far as its enforcement is concerned it is yet to >e put into action.
76
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CASES
6ampbell 2. %uff!Rose Musi $ 44< S. Ct. 44-<$ 44- (4<.EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE59 6ampbell 2. %uff!Rose Musi/ n.$ 746 ".S. 7-$ 73 (4<.EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE53 6ariou 2. Prine$ 34< F.9d -< (5nd Cir. 5649EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE53 -eist Publiations n. 2. Rural elep*one Ser2ie$ < ".S. 9<6 (44.EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE53
43 ".S. Code 965.EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE49 he Copyri=ht 'ct$ 473$ Section 49 (4 (a.EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE9$ 55
TREATISES
6opin1er on 6op+ri1*t/ (45th &dn. 1ara <7EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE43 *r. 1eter *rahos$ *e ;ni2ersalit+ of ntelletual Propert+ Ri1*ts: #ri1ins and
'e2elopment , 0ueen Mary and 8estfield Colle=e (London$ "nited ;in=dom.EEEEEEE55 +&!&LL& B&LM'S$ 8',!& )/&RB&C; $ Ma0or Priniples of Media Law$ 564< &dition.EE %&!*R' ; "M'R *'S$ Law of 6op+ri1*t $ 1H Learnin= 1#t. Limited$ 5647.EEEEEEEEEEEEEE3 L. R ', 1'&RS)! (Broc? 1rofessor of Law at the "ni#ersity of +eor=ia$ cited >y Stowe$ *.$ =ust 'o t:
-undamentals for Sientists and (n1ineers$ hird &ditionEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 74
8',!& )/&RB&C; $ Ma0or Priniples #f Media Law$ Harcourt Colle=e 1u>lishers$ 5664 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
ARTICLES
*'/* S. 8&L;)82 $ State of t*e State: s *ere % -uture for State 'ilution Laws $ 5< Santa Clara Computer N Hi=h ech. L.%. -4$ -5 (566EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE59 http:KKwww.splc.or=KarticleK5647K6KstudentEmediaE=uideEtoEcopyri=htElaw$ #isited on K6>s$ *e -uture of %ut*orsJ and %rtistsJ Moral Ri1*ts in %meri a$ 5B&/&RL, HLLS B. 'ssP! %. 4-3$ 4- (45.EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE9 Michael Seadle$ (5665 O6op+ri1*t in t*e networked world: moral ri1*ts O$ Li>rary Hi ech$ /ol. 56 ss: 4$ pp.45< E 453EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE9 R)B 8'"+H$
*e terrif+in1 rise of +ber rime$ Mailonline$ 43 an 5649EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE44
,in Harn Lee / 6op+ri1*t and -reedom of (4pression: % Literature Re2iew a#aila>le at https:KKenodo.or=KrecordK4495KfilesKCR&'eE8or?in=E1aperE5647E6<.pdf$ #isited on 46K6
OTHERS
L'"R&!C& S&R!& in his no#el *e Life and #pinions of ristam S*and+EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE3
R ESEARCH PAPER
75
