Abstract
The 21st century is often recognized as the age of knowledge and information, and with this shift, the role of Intellectual Property (IP) has become more important than ever. Intellectual Property, particularly Copyright, is crucial in protecting the ideas and works of individuals. The principle behind copyright laws is simple: “Thou shall not steal,” which reflects the moral duty to respect someone else’s creative work. As technology advances and the world becomes increasingly digital, the significance of copyright law grows, playing a major role in the modern economy.
When someone uses another person’s creative work without permission, it can discourage the original creator from producing new work. Copyright laws help protect creators, ensuring that they benefit from their efforts and are motivated to continue creating. These laws not only protect the rights of creators but also contribute to social welfare and education by encouraging creativity and innovation.
This research paper will explore various aspects of copyright, including the rights of the copyright owner, broadcasting rights, performers’ rights, and the concept of “Fair Dealing.” The term “Fair Dealing” is not clearly defined in copyright law, which is why it has been interpreted differently in various legal cases. For example, in the case of Hubbard vs. Vosper (1972), Lord Denning explained that fair dealing depends on the specific situation. The paper will also discuss a recent case involving fair dealing, Super Cassettes Industries vs. Hamar Television Network Pvt. Ltd. (2011), and examine the well-known D.U. Photocopy case, which raised important issues related to the public interest in copyright.
Piracy, the illegal copying or distribution of copyrighted works, has become a major global issue. It continues to grow as technology improves and the internet provides easier ways to steal and share content. To combat this, countries around the world are taking stronger actions. However, these advancements in technology have also led to new challenges in copyright law, especially with the widespread use of the internet. The paper will conclude with recommendations and suggestions on how to better address these challenges in the evolving digital landscape.
Introduction
Mahatma Gandhi, who passed away in 1948, had his works protected under copyright law through a trust he helped create, the Navjivan Trust. Gandhi wrote many books and articles, including his famous autobiography “The Story of My Experiments with Truth.” Under copyright law, his works were protected for 60 years after his death, meaning they would enter the public domain in 2008. Some scholars suggested extending the copyright term to prevent others from exploiting his writings, but the Navjivan Trust decided not to extend it and allowed his works to become public domain. This decision was in line with Gandhi’s own values, including his principles of non-exploitation.
Copyright law, as explained by G. Davis, is about protecting the creator’s right to benefit from their work, ensuring they are not exploited. This protection is vital for encouraging creativity and cultural progress, as it prevents others from unfairly copying and profiting from an author’s work. It also serves as an extension of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. If creators are not guaranteed protection of their intellectual property, it could discourage them from producing new works. The law ensures that creators can control how their works are used and make a living from them.
The concept of copyright has evolved over time, expanding beyond just literature and arts to include things like computer programs, sound recordings, and films. It grants the creator the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and display their work. The purpose of copyright is to prevent others from copying a creator’s work and profiting from it without permission, thereby protecting the original form in which ideas are expressed. In the modern world, where technology plays a large role, copyright law remains a key aspect of intellectual property protection.
Rights of Owner
The word “copyright” doesn’t just mean one right; it actually refers to a bundle of three key rights that the creator of a work holds:
- Exclusive Economic Right
Under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, authors are granted several important economic rights that help them control how their work is used and make money from it. These rights include the economic rights, which means the author has the exclusive authority to copy, distribute, and sell their work. The adaptation rights allow the author to make changes to their work, such as turning a book into a movie or a play, or creating translations into different languages.
The public performance rights give the author the right to perform their work in public, like playing a song in a concert or acting out a play on stage. The broadcasting rights allow the author to control how their work is shown through radio, television, or other media platforms. Finally, the cable casting rights cover the author’s control over the transmission of their work through cable networks. These rights protect the author’s ability to earn money from their creative works and prevent unauthorized use by others.
- Moral Rights or Special Rights of the Author
In the case of Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of moral rights, which protect an author’s connection to their work, even after the economic rights have been transferred. The case involved Amarnath Sehgal, a well-known artist who created a large mural for the government in 1957, which was displayed in Vigyan Bhawan, Delhi. This mural became an important piece of Indian art heritage. However, in 1979, the government removed the mural, damaged it, and stored it without informing or seeking permission from Sehgal. Sehgal then filed a lawsuit, claiming his moral right was violated.
The court ruled in his favor, recognizing that moral rights are essential for protecting an artist’s relationship with their creation. Specifically, the court emphasized two key moral rights: the right to be recognized as the author of a work and the right to protect the work from distortion or destruction. The court held that the government’s actions not only violated Sehgal’s moral rights over the mural but also harmed the cultural heritage of the nation. As a result, the court ordered the government to return the remaining parts of the mural to Sehgal, pay him damages, and declared that the government no longer had any rights over the work. This decision was significant because it was one of the first times that the moral rights of an artist were upheld under the Indian Copyright Act, marking an important step in the recognition of authors’ rights in India.
- Neighboring Rights
In India, the Copyright Act gives special rights to broadcasting organizations and performers, which are similar to copyright but are considered “neighboring rights” internationally. The term “neighboring rights” comes from French, meaning “near to the musical work,” and these rights protect people who play a role in distributing and broadcasting creative works, even though they may not be the original creators. These rights developed alongside copyright as technology advanced, highlighting the need to protect not only authors of works like music, literature, or art but also the intermediaries involved in broadcasting or disseminating these works.
In India, the term “neighboring rights” is not used directly in the law. However, the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 introduced Sections 37 and 38, which provide special rights to broadcasting organizations and performers. This Act also granted copyright protection to producers of sound recordings, recognizing them as creators in their own right. Later, the Amendment Act of 2012 further strengthened these protections by introducing Section 38A, which gives exclusive rights to performers, and Section 38B, which grants performers moral rights, ensuring that they are recognized and protected for their contributions. These changes aimed to provide more comprehensive protection for all those involved in the creation and distribution of artistic and musical works.
- Broadcasting Rights
Section 37 of the Copyright Act gives broadcasting organizations a special right called the “broadcasting reproduction right.” This right allows them to control how their broadcasts are used. It lasts for 25 years, starting from the beginning of the calendar year after the broadcast is made. During this period, if someone rebroadcasts the program, makes a sound or visual recording of it, or reproduces these recordings without permission, it is considered an infringement of the broadcasting rights. However, there are exceptions. If the recording is for private use or for genuine teaching or research purposes, it doesn’t count as an infringement. Similarly, using excerpts of the broadcast for reporting news or for educational purposes is also allowed.
- Rights of Performers
In the past, live performances by artists like musicians, dancers, and actors were very popular. People loved to see their favorite performers on stage, and there would often be long lines of fans waiting to watch. It was also a matter of great pride for artists to perform live in front of an audience. However, with the advancement of technology, performances began to be replaced by recorded versions. It became cheaper for sponsors to play recorded music or performances instead of paying the performers large amounts of money to perform live. This shift caused many performers to lose their jobs, leading to what is known as “technological unemployment.”
To protect performers in such situations, a law was introduced in 1994 that defined the rights of performers. Section 2(qq) of the Act describes a “performer” as someone who performs live, like an actor, singer, dancer, juggler, snake charmer, or even someone giving a lecture. The law gives these performers a special right called “performer’s right,” which protects their work for 50 years. However, there are certain exceptions to when their rights can be infringed, similar to how broadcast reproduction rights are treated. This law ensures that performers have legal protection against unauthorized use of their live performances.
Doctrine of Fair Dealing
The term “fair dealing” is not clearly defined in copyright law, but it refers to situations where copyrighted material is used without permission in ways that are deemed acceptable, such as for criticism, review, or news reporting. In the case of Hubbard v. Vosper, Lord Denning explained that “fair dealing” is a matter of judgment based on how the material is used. Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, lists nearly forty exceptions where using copyrighted material doesn’t count as infringement, such as for educational purposes or reviews.
In one case, Chancellor Masters and Scholars of University of Oxford v. Narender Publishing House, a publisher claimed copyright over a mathematics book. The defendants copied the questions and created a guidebook. The defendants argued that their work was a “review” of the original book and therefore, they were allowed to use the material under fair dealing. Similarly, in Super Cassettes Industries v. Hamar Television Network Pvt. Ltd., a music company sued a TV channel for broadcasting its copyrighted music. The defendant argued that the broadcast was a “review” of current events. The court ruled in favor of the music company, stating that “fair dealing” is difficult to define exactly it depends on the facts of each case and the overall impression of the court. The court also emphasized that freedom of expression and public interest could justify using copyrighted material in certain situations, even when the use might normally be considered infringement.
Public interest, like access to education and healthcare, can sometimes outweigh the rights of copyright holders. This principle helps courts decide cases in India, especially in cases where public access to knowledge or affordable medicines is at stake. However, too broad an interpretation of public interest can lead to misuse.
Conclusion
Public interest refers to actions that benefit the general well-being and rights of society. While it’s widely understood to mean promoting the collective good, there is no clear agreement on what exactly constitutes public interest. Justice Bhagwati once defined it as actions that address public harm, enforce duties, and protect broad, shared rights and interests.
In the context of copyright, public interest is often seen as a balance between protecting the rights of creators and ensuring that society as a whole benefits from access to information and culture. As Neil Turkewitz of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) explained, copyright protection serves the public interest by fostering economic growth, promoting cultural diversity, and defending human rights.
However, balancing public interest with the rights of creators can be challenging, especially in cases of copyright infringement, which has become a global issue. With the rise of technology, piracy illegally copying and distributing works like books, music, and films has become widespread. New technologies make it easier for pirates to copy and distribute these works. To address this, India’s Copyright Act was amended in 1983 and again in 1992 to strengthen copyright protections, including extending the copyright duration from fifty to sixty years after the creator’s death.