• joint authorship —

• The effect it can have on transfer, term and confusion which usage would bring through this.
• ‘Why co-author and not joint author?’ —- the main difference is the splitting of work into parts would = coauthor, if
work done together = joint authorship.
• Then what about the journals — ‘co-author’
• What difference does it make?
• [bookmark 2]
• The heart of the problem is people have decided to collaborate —- they collaborated and eventually what they
collaborated, the question is are their collab distinguishable = co-author, non-distinguish = joint authorship.
• Indian act refers only to joint authorship, a work produced by collab with another and the work is non-distinguishable.
• But why journals still continue with co-authorship — because of the prevalent use of the term. Co-authorship isn’t
even part of the law. Journals are mistaken.

1. Doubt —- distinguishable from whose pov? The reader. Is the reader able to distinguish it or not (cuz the contribution
determines the monetary compensation for the same and changes the relationship between these authors)

• different jurisdiction making disctinction between joint and co-authorship

[3/9/21]
• a common terminology which is used mistakenly but also widely is ‘co-authorship; when it really does not exist in
India law.

Analysing other jurisdiction for clarity

Landmark case - Najma Abdullah (?) v. Orient Longman Case — Indian context joint authorship — does not
refer to the at… so is it reliable?

1. Joint authorship interprets in other jurisdiction [Incomplete]

• Berne convention, roots. Talks about it, doen’t interpret it. This caused members to interpret their own way.
• Trips agreement, doesn’t talk about joint authorship and only says that Berne convention articles except 6 bis will be
applicable to member states. So members decide what joint authorship is.
• US law - joint work = 2 or more authors = work is inseparable and one whole unit. This interpretation brings in certain
parameters absent in Indian provision. ‘Not distinct’ from contribution of the other author is not enough. We could say
that it is inseparable, the US interpretation talks about interdependent, unitary whole and there fore joint work by joint
authors. This offers a lot of clarity.
• The interpretation in India — UK Law CDPA—- which currently refers to both u/s 10
• - joint - work is not distinct. Film is work of joint authorship if

• s.10a — co-authorship = work created separately but intended to be used together.

• Aus act ???

2 aspects we should focus on — inseparability and indistinguishablity.

• indistinguishable - if the expressions have been merged in a way that they cannot be distinguished and work cannot be
distinct.
• Inseparability could include indistinguishable but it would be wider and would include certain expressions which are
closely related to form a unitary whole. Like a comic strip — which includes, story boarding, the colouring, the text,
which may not have independent existence as the author is seeking but they are intended to be together. Inseparable
means that units cannot be separated but they can be distinct or they may not be distinct from each other and may be
indistinguishable

• Indian interpretation — joint authorship = collab between 2 or more, and the contribution is not

CASE
• this case has a lot of historical relevance.
• Book India wins Freedom by Maulana Azad and the editor is Humayun Kabir. [to a layperson] [experts in IPR made
them co-authors]
• The book is basically sold in name of Maulana Azad, the preface on the other hand is by Prof. Kabir. He says that he
 wrote this book from the dictation of Maulana Azad?? But not said to be joint author.
• Labour persuaded MA to narrate events leading up to partition, in Urdu transcribed by Kabir into English. The work
would have compiled and later reviewed by MAyulana and any changes by MA would be accommodated by Kabir. In
the year 19-7 the book was ready to be published.
• Certain portions MA felt were of personal nature and he didn’t wish these extract (30 pages) to not be published
immediately in the text which is to be published, but he wanted all of the text including 30 pages to be published 30
years after his demise, before publication Ma passed away. Ypon his death, his legal reps consented to an arrangement
where prof. Kabir would enter into an agreement with Orient and the terms said that the text would be published by O
and royalties %0% to MA’s heirs and rest 50%to Kabir. Orient Longman would have the first right to open the seal
first and publish it when time came.
• The agreement made in 1958, Prof. Kabir claimed to be the ‘sole composer of the author’ [exact words]/ and the
publication would be on condition on payment of royalties. So, as part f he deal, the book [abridged without 30 pages
were published] [30 pages were in NAtional Library safely]. The sales which happened there on, the royalties were
distributed to legal reps and Kabir.
• The legal reps of MA, those who were alive back then — sister and nephew. Sister is grandmother of Najma. Sister
and Nephew got the royalties and there was this dispute between S and N over who has rights over the book over text
written by MA, some settlement was there but something that is not being contested here is that Fathima Begum
continued to get royalties, post her death her legal reps got it and other side also continued to get it.
• 30 years later, they tried to open the seal and they wanted to publish the complete text, now the case has been brought
to injunction these defendants — Orient Longman and Nephew’s line of legal reps + Kabir’s descendants daughter Lila
Kabir. Defendants are okay with publication of 30 pages
• Najma filed this matter seeking injunction from releasing the complete test. She is plaintiff drawing power from
fathima Begum, sis of MA.
• The problem ——— she says that the injunction is justifiable because MA is author of the work and even if KAbir was
a joint author, he has no right to get into an agreement with Orient Longman and transfer rights without consent of the
legal reps of MA.
• Def say —-
- orient says it has always been the contention that MA and KAbir were joint authors, back then there was consent
from the legal reps and their was no way that they did not have any knowledge because they were receiving royalties,
Prof. Kabir’s rep say he is not joint author but sole author because idea = MA but wrote it down = Kabir and therefore
Kabir = author. And therefore him being sole composer she can enter into agreement with orient Longman,
Who is the author? One or both?
— one of the aspects of being a scribe so that this is common knowledge in copyright is that scribes seen;’t authors, word
-to-airs dictation — work isn’t original, therefore, he can’t eve be joint author.
Had Kabir been a scribe and not transcribed it, then he cannot claim any authors ship but the intellectual effort placed him
above a scribe
Translator and can they be given copyright protection under s.14
Professor — he persuaded MA to narrate and he wrote it down, so it was a collab. The end product, india wins freedom
has material which is indistinguishable. If we merely refers to joint authorship under Indian ACt, there was a collab +
indistinguishable = Joint authorship.
But Court didn’t refer that and under s.2(d), the court referred to just the ‘author’ and said definition of author and S.55,
which says that in ordinary circumstances, the person whose name is with the publication, is the author of that
publication. Whether they are joint authors or not, th court considers UK cases. Those cases were concerned and the
decision is not what the act says, so it is important.
Is it a new provision? No, it is unamended and has existed back then too but it wasn’t considered.
The court essentially stopped the legal reps of Kabir from exercising their rights because no joint authorship was
considered.
[read this case]

[06/09/21]
• Joint Authorship (contd.)…
• The whole discussion we had on - simple transcribing of work - would that qualify as joint authorship = yes, he had
worked upon translating the work from Urdu to English -
• Simple scrubs do not have any claims over authorship - if the work had not been translated.
[read Joint Authorship
[10/09/21
[contd. Joint Authorship
so, first thing we looked at what the interpretation of work of joint authorship under S.2z of
Copyright Act, no intention just “collab” and the factor of “indistinguishability”
Indistinguishability is a fact.
A publishes a book and B had collaborated on that but only A’s name is used. The dispute would
be on the indistinguishability of contribution and not the intent. The argument gets a more
nuanced later
[Provision] —> S.55(2) ——> it says —“the person whose name so appears on the work, is presumed
to be the author unless contrary can be proved.
In the above situation, B could claim that this is not a work of sole authorship but a work of
joint authorship. Joint authorship is a fact here.
How do we consider this contribution? Do we consider the qty? Like how many pages or how much
work? And does this problem change with subject matters? Like imagine a composition of 4
minutes, i provide 10seconds, would this make me a joint author? What should this contribution
be? Or whether each contribution should meet its own originality standard to not
The reference that commentators make on Joint Authorship, they refer to Najma Abdullah case
where the provision of Joint Authorship was not even referred making it an improper authority
One way we can do is to look at it theoretically, and if i were to look at it theoretically — Joint
author = 2 or more authors of one work. The requirement set out under the act would apply to
said authors individually
For ex — i wrote 6 pages out of 300// 10s our of a 4 min composition. My claim is not collab but
the joint authorship. The contribution i make to the book, requires —> my work is a musical work
which requires S.13 to apply. [individual joint authors have to satisfy individual originality to
claim joint authorship
This has been explained in UK decisions very well.
Brighton v. Jones [case
—> significant contribution = every joint author has to contribute this way
—> how do you attribute significance of a work, and whether the aspect you have a copyright
over work, even like suppose you contributed less but it contributes a lot to the work.
For ex — Sampling — say, i have a composition which has been performed and recorded, and the
resultant sound recording — composition in the form of music [not defined in act
Suppose this music has a pattern of two three notes which keeps on repeating at certain points
throughout this recording, of the remaining aspects this pattern is not a lot of %age of the
song. Only 3 secs let’s say, can this person now be picked up for infringement?
The person would argue that its only 3 seconds —> this is nothing compared to rest of the act,
here in comes in the aspect of —significant contribution. So, significance is when when you create
a work, there’s some aspect of the work which would be adding more value to the work, this
would be providing you with the threshold of originality.
Like in music — there is a portion which would remain with you distinctly. A brain worm sort of
portion, this could be any seconds within a song. This leaves us with the conclusion ==
What is significance? Significance is not quantified but based on quality. As long as i can prove
my contribution is original, that is where originality comes in. If i can prove that then i do not
need to prove anyone about the quantity significance
How would you differentiate significant contribution in an indistinguishable work? ==> the person
who is alleging that he has not been credited could point out his contribution, the work he has
added. This work has to be individual and his work has to satisfy the author and originality
criteria, individually to be able to get rights as a joint author
What about a quote on back of a book—the author puts it on the front of his book it
represents the soul of the book — this would not be joint authorship at all
But in music a contribution of a few seconds may give you claim for joint authorship

2. The fact that you made a contribution but the term being used is of “joint-authorship” ==> i
can’t do anything to this work on my own and the work and all decisions related to it will be
managed jointly with the other authors. But if my rights are equal, then shouldn’t my
contribution also be equal?
Why is he making that claim.? Logically, do i have to contribute equally to significance of
contribution? My contribution in quantity is less but the end result of this is equal control due to
joint authorship
3. What should the contribution be aimed at? Should it be creation of the work purely, or should
it be something else? Like if i added a work post-publication, can i then claim joint authorship
The understanding here is that because these contribution are forming one work, then it should
be limited to creation of that work, where the contribution has led to the particular creation is
the only relevant contribution.
4. Najma Case — i need not put pen to paper in order to claim joint authorship, like Maulana did.
What is enough is that i have contributed enough to the creation of the work. It is enough that
there has been significant contribution and non-fixation cannot be grounds to deny joint
authorship

These 4 considerations come from Brighton v. Jones

Theatre co. entered into an agreement with the playwright, and the agreement essentially says
that the playwright will write the script and the copyright ownership will lie with the
playwright
Any changes made to the script by anybody, it would be approved by the playwright and
theorem the ownership would 100% lie with the playwright
The claimant is director if theatre co., playwright was making the play. The director during
rehearsals would provide opinions and this would sometimes be taken y performers in the manner
of their performance,
so coming to the dispute— the OG script was revised, but had substantial part of the previous
script. This received success. The director comes and claims that he was joint author of the
previous script based on his suggestions during rehearsal being incorporated in the play. And
because of my previous. Joint authorship, and lack of acknowledgment of the same, the new
script is violative of my joint authorship
When the court looked at Tia fact situation, t went on to lay out in reference to other
precedent sin the UK, it referred to them and this made a whole criteria, in these 4 guidelines in
determining the contribution of director was not significant, and was not for creation f the work
and for something else
1. Significant contributio
2. Need not be equal with the other contributo
3. Has to be with respect to creation of the work
4. Need not put pen to paper to be considered Joint Author

In Najma decision, the court went to foreign decisions before the provisions in Indian Act. Which
is sorta better cuz they explained it better in foreign cases than the provision —> any things
which they skipped out on is fine

Co-Authorship
all joint authorship in India is co-authorship? What was the justification for this? Why should it
matter if they are both collaborators? This need to be further elaborated
What we saw in context of Europe = Directors are joint authors with the producer because both
their contribution is very significant to slow them joint control
In Indian act, there is no reference to director of the film and when we see the subject matter
— what kind of work is the director doing
2010, it was proposed that an amendment to the Cat to include Director as a joint author is to
be considered,—> but this was not included
The fact that such a provision could have made its way into the act way back in 2010 is
phenomenal.
Has there been representation from Director’s side to get this amendment? Unlike directors,
lyricists are in a better union but directors do not have not such unity.
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Joint Authorship
- Question - whether all joint authors are also co-authors
○ Indian act talks about collaborations. There has to be collaborations, there is no
doubt about that
○ The problem here is only with the terminology since co-authorship has not been
defined and expressed in the act and therefore it old not be right to use it in context
○ For ex — JIPS -> uses joint authorship [which is the TCA] but not co-authorship
because where is the interpretation, the act doesn’t explain anything. So where would you use
it? If co -author = joint author, then why not use joint-author
1. There is no co-authorship in Indian Act. And Joint = Co-author interpretation where
does its origin lie
- The term co-authorship is used in different countries [as discussed before
- The UK — uses both words but separate contexts. They make a distinction that
there is separability in co-authorship but no such separability exists in case of joint-authorship.
So, if you can separate works — you can stakes in the work due to collaboration, you can have
three different kinds of works in a collaboration - like illustrations accompanying a book, or a
musical work. - naturally there is separability. Indistinguishability is not even considered because
clearly if they can be separated then they are distinguishable.
In order to be indistinguishable you’ll have to be the same type of work [this is like
the bare minimum in this context]. Say, A and B are composer and lyricist respectively and their
collaboration will result in two separable and distinct works - the lyrics and the composition of
the music recording. There is no denying that there is a collaboration but this collaboration is
distinguishable and separable
It is something else if it is distinguishable
2. In a situation, think of joint authorship — one contribution is not distinct from the
other — is it possible for me to not affect the work of joint authorship and continue to use my
portions of the collaboration? Separately
- In the case of joint authorship — the works are indistinguishable, how would you
separate the work at all in the first place. When your contribution is indistinguishable then it
becomes impossible for you to exercise separate rights for your contribution because you cannot
separate a work of joint authorship
- In case of separable work, authors could claim copyright separately for their
contributions.
- When your contribution is indistinguishable it becomes impossible to exercise
separate right over your contribution
- Separate contribution in a collaboration — S.13 ——> authors are at liberty to
exercise their rights over their work separately
- Sound recording may have multiple authors, these authors are in a collaborative
work but the authors who were part of this could be called co-authors, the composer and
lyricists and everybody could use their work separately without prejudicing the use of anybody
else. Why? Collaboration yes but no joint authorship in this situation due to the ability to
separate the contribution to the collaboration
- Co-authorship in India — limited by interpretation in our act — this has led to the
following two consequences
[1] — the kind of contribution would be different in case of co - authorshi
[2] — difference in contribution, the arrangement will be determined contractuall
Therefore, in a collaborative effort, there will be specific clauses for the payment
based on the contribution made
- Co-authorship, from the copyright act, there is no such mention and for those co-
authorship claimed in disputes can a person claim it as a defence that separability makes it not
joint authorship and since there is no co-authorship in the statute, you cannot sue me — this can
be claimed
- Co-authorship is not defined anywhere — there is nothing in the act
- So, in UK legislation’s where co-authorship is specified, these two authors would have
authorship over the co-authored work and now this question about claiming separate copyright,
how would it work out in these legislation
- French IP Code — work of collaboration— author were joint authors and jointly own
the property and these authors can use the works independently as long as it is not prejudicial
to the other joint authors’ work
 - This statement or provision would cover the problem that we are faced with in the
Indian Context, obviously it does not make sense that prolly you can use your own contribution
as long as you do not prejudice the work of collaboration. This provision is a good reference point
to consider

Module 3 — Related Right

13/09/21
- These rights are related because the priority in copyright universe, in sense of
importance, has always been that of the author and that has changed overtime with focus on
right holders referring to owners of works
- When the Berne Convention, the exception clause which was provided, this referred to
author, the exception would be exercised against the author but when this rule was inserted in
TRIPS — it referred to the ‘right holder’
- This means that the importance of the author has subsided considerably and there is more
emphasis on the owner rather than the author. And when that happens, the dominance of
copyright has stayed alive, the other segments which are relatable to copyright but aren’t
copyright have a hierarchical distribution, which may seem unfair, but that maybe because of
lack of international agreements on extending the similar kind of rights as given to authors — to
the performers
- Similarity in the kind of rights as granted under copyright, these rights are kind of
different and the related rights have a subservient nature as compared to copyrights. Basically
—— Copyright >>>> Related Rights
- So, in that context

1. Who is a performer
- When you think of a performer, you think of a person using his faculties to express
something to an individual
- Two things here — the individual who is performing and the capacity of this expression to
be perceived.
- So, in understanding performers and keeping this context in India, you can think of ‘n’
number of performers. You can include people who are visual or acoustic presentation. You can
bring anybody who does that bring it into the ambit of performance, the manner in which
performances are interpreted can lead to certain restriction
○ These kinds of restrictions can in fact be quite prejudicial, as it is performers have
historically have had to face very differential treatment.
○ History —
§ Berne Convention ( late 19th century) —> it dealt with, literary and artistic
works [a broad terminology including musical works and dramatic works]
§ At that time, performers were largely governing themselves through labour
systems and unions and they were getting wages. This was like any other wage, you give your
daily service —> you get paid on a daily basis. Or a lump sum amount as decided between union
and the production
§ So earlier this ind of system was under the ILO. But with the development of
ICT — performances could be communicated to a much wider audience across the world, stakes
grew. It was felt now that locally based labour organisations by themselves could not exert with
the kind of pressure and could not deal with the cultural dimensions of another state, to
essentially bargain with them to bring payment parity
§ This situation arose and it was also felt that what performers are doing is quite
similar to what the authors are also doing in the sense that there is creativity in their
expression. So since it aligns to copyright, it would be correct to bring it within this ambit of IP
§ That’s how there was a shift from the ILO to International IP and eventually
Rome Convention came
§ Rome Convention — marks a departure from considering artists/performing arts
wala artists who were not considered similar to authors. Many countries are not part of it
The fact that the Indian Act has been in place for a long time that even after
the Rome Convention came to be, there was no such hurry felt to include performers in the
copyright act. It was felt that the industry is capable of managing itself and performers who
are there can form unions/associations get fair payment but these kinds of a illusion, this broke
when TRIPS mandated extension of performers rights
§ India was forced to specifically provide this in their act and therefore in 1994,
the legislators introduced Performer Rights. This brought performer rights to India
§ Pre-1994, [S.14 discussion read] S.14 — bundle of different t rights in sense of
its application, there are 2 important rights here — performance of work in public &
communication of work [both are different
§ 1980s — 2 amendments — first time “communication fo work to public” was
introduced. Prior to that “Performance of work in public” was what we consider “communication
of work in public” today. Because there was no concept of a performer back then
§ So in 1994 —> performers being given a separate rights were given separate
rights, and were granted certain economic rights but even back then it was not felt that these
performers should be granted “moral rights”, which were only extended to performers in 2012.
Prior to that the kind of remedy which existed with a performer whose work would be
misappropriated would lie with common law and no remedy under performer rights existed
because the acknowledgement of moral rights was not present wrt performance
§ Trying to extend similar kind of protection as given to the authors to
performers — this is not unique to India cuz manny nation’s at the time afforded much lesser
right to performers.
§ Along with this there were many Industry Concerns — so when we consider all
these factors, the class of performers was quite negatively affected

2. What is a performance
- If we say that performances are creative expressions then under the ambit of the act,
we mean performances to be “original” —> if they are original = then performances
- But, if we look at S.38 of the Act
○ Where any performer appears or engages any performance— have a special right to
be known as the performer in relation to such performance. Performer right belong to the
performers
○ Unlike, this in S.13 —> we clearly see copyright shall subsist in original works.
“Originality” becomes a criteria here
○ Perhaps when we look at the interpretation of ’performances’ they maybe saying
something about originality — performances in relation to performers rights is any presentation
made visual or acoustic made live —still doesn’t say anything about originality
○ What about a performer? — Performer includes any actor, dancer, acrobat, juggler,
snake charmer, person delivering a lecture or any other person who makes a performance.
Proviso [insert here
- S.38
- So, again we see that there is no specific reference to originality needs but in
context of cinematographic films they seem to be saying that the practice of the industry may
or may not have with originality is not the concern of anyone wrt copyright[?
- How did we realise that a performer’s right. Has begun or is attached to a
performance?
- We know it with copyright because it is clear because originality is a qualifying
factor. But in context of performance in absence of originality, what criteria are we supposed to
follow? Which is where commentators on performers right have attributed
J., Richard Almond[?
Owen Morgan [?
- So, these commentators have said that a performer when he provides a visual or
acoustic presentation using his faculties, that expression is so innately his that there is no way
you can deny its originality. So, according to these commentators — every single performance is
original in itself — and that is why originality standard need not be specifically attached
- Originality is infused into the performance — there is no such thing, in the copyright
act at least of that of an unoriginal performance — a person untrained in dancing or singing can
still be a performer — the fact that there is a presentation provided, makes that person capable
f enjoying performance rights
- Proviso —> came in 2012 —> if a person whose performance is casual or incidental in
nature, in the normal course of practise in the industry, he is not acknowledged anywhere
including the credits of the film, shall not be treated as a a performer except for the purposes
of S.38B.
§ There are these groups of performers within the industry — audio-visual
industry — these are considered casual by the industry in the sense of that they can’t provide
their expression[?] — and for the 2-3 days that they are coming, they’ll be paid according to the
wages which have been decided. For ex. — VoiceActors or Stuntmen are considered casual in
nature of their expression [?], up until now [now changes are coming with acknowledgement of
some kind being given] but this wasn’t present earlier
§ The fact that the industry treats somebody as casual and chooses not to
acknowledge them, how does that affect the person enjoying performance right or not? This
2012 addition to copyright act, acc. To sir, is quite mischievous
§ India’s stance leading up to the Beijing Treaty —> India went on to propose
what the eventual treaty would look like and still we are not party to the treaty but we have
incorporated some aspects of the treaty into our act. So, during those negotiations, India
provided for a vision such as this but they provided that these provisions will be included with
the following term, at the end of the provisions they provided, that you should include “such as
extras

3. Who is an EXTRA
• An extra is a person who is simply forming part of the atmosphere. [eg. — people cheering
at boundaries in Lagan, are just standing and not performing to anything
• They are there to be in the background and fill in the atmosphere, they are not
portraying any character. These kinds of individuals are extras in film industry
• Had the proviso been inserted with “Such as extras” —> it would have increased the
context of who needs to be excluded from performer’s rights and who shouldn’t
• The fact that this was not included has led to the situation that entire group of
performers that perhaps they are not covered under the copyright act

We can understand basically that

1. Concept of originality is infused into a person’s performance
2. Any exclusions which take place have to be based on this first aspect of originality,
If we take into account point 1 then we can exclude a person like an extra but it does not allow
us to exclude a person like a voice over artis

14/09/21
• Rights provided to performer
○ Doub
§ Concert Sign Language Translators = not performers = no performance rights
extended to them
§ Subject matter is the underlying lyrics — the lyricist is the author for that
§ Sign Language =/= translation [?
○ [Revision] - Historically performer’s rights have taken a backseat in the copyright
framework. They have gained relevance in the present times because of dramatic change ICT has
made with respect to access to performances. Earlier - limited to live performances — now they
can be broadcasted and spread so the relationship between the author and reproduction and the
specific artists becomes relevant
○ Authors could stay at one place and still have an impact around the world and still
have no interference from the ICT. Why? Reproduction [ in case of books] would happen by way
of machines and these books maybe spread across territories
Same is not for performances — performance by a performer to reach other parts of
the world require ICT help. So, which is where we see the move to provide for a uniform
international framework grew only late in the 1900s
The reason for domestic hesitancy — more related to domestic considerations. Which
are industry consideration because - where India looks at its AV industry — it sees that the
person who is running the show is the producer/production house and the relationship between
the stakeholder in the industry is accepting such a hierarchy. So, until this hierarchy sexists,
there is hesitancy in according higher rights to performers
India — Beijing Treaty — some of the things which India said was that the AV industry
runs on trust and it’s a complex industry. India is not yet ready to extend such higher rights to
performers
These are statements made by India on this platform. In India’s proposal, performer’s
such as stuntmen and dubbing artists were supposed to e excluded from granting any performing
rights and still when it came to drafting the provision, the provision was drafted to include at
the very end of the provision “such as extras” which would have brought some clarity
When we first introduced performer’s rights, we provided 25 Years of protection with
NO MORAL RIGHTS PROTECTION.
If you had consented, as a performer, to the incorporation of your work in a
cinematograph film, then the producer will enjoy performer rights over that performance.
[Industry influence is strongly seen
This has continued to dominate the position of performers even after a major change
in 2012
[distinction between performance and communication of work due to inserting
performers in the Copyright Act
Prior to 1994 — Copyright Societies weren’t called as such. They were called
performer’s society. Post -1994 when performers were inserted, these societies could not be
called performers societies anymore and thereby were called copyright society

• There is a distinction between Copyright Societies and Performers Societ

○ Back then these societies PS [IPRS and PPL], IPRS and PPL have continued the
usage of the term ‘performer’ within their title has now lead to confusion which did not exist
before because it fir the bill Pre-1994
○ Now IPRS doesn’t deal with performers — Performers are not facilitated by IPRS or
PPL.
○ Imagine the odds, the unity of creative individuals who are forced to come together
and bring up a bargaining society, and for which a possible solution is also under law by way of a
copyright society. But no such thing for Performer society — which became important
○ This became important in last decade when Indian Singers Rights Association [ISRA]
came into being — this is the only performer’s right society RN
○ Copyright Societies — License Works, facilitate access to prospective licensees and
they play a big. Part in collection of revenues from these licensees and the distribution to the
concerned right holders.
○ PPL — has members like producers. IPRS has authors and producers.
○ ISRA — has singers [performers] —
 ○ for one work how are you going to provide for collection and distribution with
respect to these individuals
a. You’re a hotel owner who wants to organize a Christmas Party and you want to
play music which is new. You advertised your event, and next day you received 3 notices from
IPRS, PPL about the license and ISRA as well. So this puts the poor Hotel Owner at a position
which is kind of disadvantageous. The amount of money that you pay to these societies Amy go
beyond the revenue which you may earn from organizing such parties. What would you do? You
would note that these parties often end up playing old songs, how would you solve this problem?
——> What about other performers like the instrument players who are part of the recording?
They don’t seem to have a performer right society? What do they do
○ Maybe industry practice is that a guitarist or any other instrumentalist would be
under the agreement that the guitarist would sign over their rights to the producer for an
agreed amount of money and after that they do not get paid. This does not solve the problem
○ S.39A — Certain provision to apply to performer’s rights — makes S.18 and S.19 [R3]
available to performers. Performers have right to receive royalties …this has been upheld by Del
HC as well
○ Earlier classes — single equitable remuneration? May depend on the industry
practice — this might get varied. The question, how is it that 3 different societies are piling on
one single individual to pay royalties? — the societies are responsible for collecting — they have
distribution schemes for deciding the claim of royalties [???
○ Right to receive royalties is arising out of sound recordings being used.
○ How do we reconcile the royalties between authors and performers given that
S.39A says that they should be shared
○ Who will they ask the share from
○ S.18 and S>19 — sound recording will not make the share, whose responsibility is to
make the sound recording, whose liability is it to give me that recording?
○ The producer of the sound recording because his work is being used will get the
royalties because his work is being used, there cannot be an individual claim. So in that sense —
the producer is the assignee — it is his responsibility to provide the royalties.
○ How does that justify IPRS and ISRA claiming royalties? And why isn‘t it that PPL
is paying any royalties to ISR
○ Problem here — there are multiple different institutions claiming payments or
different things [producers, authors, performers] — eventually it comes to a point that the
person would not use the work at all. This doesn’t benefit anybody, not the user and not the
proprietor
○ Is it possible for us to consider the possibility of a single society which solely is
responsible for collection and distribution
It could be monopolistic. Sure it would be easy if one society would collect an
distribute royalties to everyone — the producers, artists, authors etc. — secondly, it would be a
big task to make everyone a member of one single society. It would simplify things
1) Conflict of interest between different stake holders
2) The power would be in hands of one single entity which could be
problematic easily. Concentration of power in one place
 The act provides for a single cosmetic for a single subject matter — this solves the
issue of conflict on interest but still, there are a few problems
§ Why not have multiple societies for authors? Why this hesitancy in accepting
more than one society
For instance — IPRS exits, any application sent to make a society in the same area it
governs would be rejected —
§ Multiple societies would solve the problem of exorbitant pricing and promote
healthy competition between societies
□ Problems in this situation
1) The problem would be with the societies who would not be able to exert
a specific amount of money from the users. If they address it competitively isn't it better
though
2) What about when two authors of one work are part of different societies
? —> that’d be taken up by the legislation. Cuz one society having arrangement contrary to
another society would be void [ missing audio here

§ Are the rights which performers have, capable of being enforced? Are the
performers able to enjoy these rights

16/09/21
• Interpretation of performers under S.2(qq) of the Act + What is the interpretation for
performance
• The reference to the presentation by a performer being LIVE — this is foundational
because there is a lot of confusion which can permeate possibly because of what the manner in
which performances are usually considered — made in front of audience
• Performances — presentations visual or acoustic. They may not necessarily be in front of
an audience. And it is a factor which makes a performance fall under S.2(q) and therefore a
subject matter for providing Performer’s Rights under S.38
20.09.21
RtA 8padeoAUs
broadcoAts cOmne wi
broodcovt
>uauy,
megnbewng
Aa wt ke
at
bi0eelammbt D Ouutho plolmanc

peloimes ant R l a d
Aowamee wl e

lao nuughowwg
boadeas
n cam o a
we s h o n l d emoe
uonv, u aspeet

6ist vodcovats as Amdlluclual pif

enwucared IP dane to
to be
D
we sc e aL
omW beLdpA
CWalwe m
to
couaers i
b o a opAoad
d
TP qhlo recoidumgs
omo umd
PLeonctis
Boaddcaate A3erdiallt aapPUM
wy ? wMer a
Rnowoh
RWouoh Lmplicaid RAamauk
+COpulol
RANAId tD A tEY be
be
bioadeast maybe
mt 'k m nowml.
le
praeue RAJUM
a
m &ueh
So, to mgaae
c a p i t a Amwes mmut to hame MaANOma
R
acn Noulable

by pA0oeIA
pooeLAS
oetaim
gta the Aame looue s u Led m
mohtAewmo o R d N m g s
o AOMit avn Well but Unlhe
'2
bAvoouclconia

lmm&aowmd recondNS who maony

pAool e
beadcasu emy ch los
. & wwo Aa
OUm pouction m wf the CRA
o s t oAper Oaubuuhng P to broadcoslu
wmou the Copa hamuwk
Sueod 8spit
UnLt's a ctam woeny, bhue's
am

Oun0 omo pelem th

He w! p0ad coser authe PO > bro ad co

tasikesMuaish sotpKpatkskrd 4

badooAtd, y cairisa pepomamce

MaAey wold b Aulhoa >fene > Broad.
h Wmd t s bi0adeoa
i s POs0wa
ealeoat tA Could be umeeMood thoua
echanin Ldaenased w/s. 14 e a mt
ali decwiA, am erut Aowot rlam whe
Co mmieio tis

ee bAcadsant A pmttid u/s. 14

o e A p o e At to pUom , comm
BhR AOA Ao th owblie i.e. brsadcaat J
-e 2thing
pUweptiom
omCE
- a b l e ete.
u/s. 38 A apeeue n eeendud to peeimea
tm i eniAl oRe eo muunc. brodcoaing
AOmAhimg wnicw mR Omd ahi co ol
wwolol be pwthn
b0occoAna LRe-broadcasunGJ
Bvoodeostu ita wit eehauatuon u Cop Act

s 37 hoadeoat rpiod" At
25 eahA
Qnoa cletimihon obivoadcaat chamad
y thu yeasA ? k OTT PAog.
O v vounm plned t OTT a t l A t
d i pMoblum eam im eomiteet o9.31b
wweh A comeLMLd wdthw " gntonuU Baadcasting
nisnm'+ comandied un eype o roadea
wueu wonld OmL As.3 D ueh
roduo & TV Cmly
.3t M 3Aistid to Radho & TV wtecom. lD
S34 0auoleastimg oag womd howe sp
t o be wwwwm aas a bhoadeoat apiod" Ak

&5 MA
he
eroasleovst amed anallab ut aEDA

y P A N who Axroadcasts ele. ufo RuciwR

wowwol Onadlud mhwmgmemt C
be
Boad Repod RA us39

9t omoolfied
AmolRAARaNdumq oct
Bnuy eriat® RMd be daluud

3 - ebro eleast
Llolma

S.30A w s 19 y upioduuelnem
Awnnc ao umlneemaed4
manuhernARd wONNRX
0itemet
o a d o o s t l s ak > may /mam'+ be dupenellmt a
amy aunoi 0 amu peLoAmUL So a m y Apfe
wede k Om
bioadoAAt
oulno mmolnmid, mw Ned.

O bMeaocaAlv Un auuehoi Obarale

B0acd.caatea com one bioadeaal yo

Oulnos e l m e B0adooau todaH
today
Com be auttho ' s Rnnalnnes a bAoaccaAt lnaU
Po Ahams,
whlugnt &p A- o 4upt - no alhsr ?

-ApeA MIm

L y wMA umen cop{ALd tha

nat RheyeaLAL me Oam u e y welN
panenb we - paLOmomces
(Rike R p t opan on )
ada dcoettá bae heis Hun space Poii oned 330,
 MJhh
. WwOt akot pi{omo Me
apole ?
n Ctam 4hRS
hm ans
n o s t wnich
pad (Wwe) .
how
maeipad (urC)- &o
t ChI wnld
uh wwE wowlo be w o

m a n t y AA wuu
Johmsm bt
Rock Ouwayne
ame alponalu p a m a l y

MORAL RIGHTS
S 388 »eonmeeknd toimtwpth dS. 2 Prano
Toluacumed paw. y
apl Ito
S.57 P a n m t paoy 7
awno's
m tu grt
mdpeMoit copu
CAunaluy pasual ) said coprt ulh
wwu hane AA to a m awlnorshap b
werh i u hame at to Aand w Om
domnage
duakonon
mutuation
meeup
e 0 h s act
iAueh act weuial be paudnual to ma

owoW uput Å ti c l a m
Pomoud ane wm't h a e m y
oomags de hAped to d a r toa
Lompuuts s2(1%aa) applie
Eocp
Eeept Pouluu to duspto ko Aaba"
auhe

gal sep eaM CULAO e i s A h u abtre

omdauonol Oobesls
Moiol Rt C o p t bcomal S.14 deab wi
Cop Omd Molhrg Ual l n eacA Lepy
 maybL MA baAld M
t N
n y ' s i not Lste S S1 C1)- "amdep
o a w u n ' s eopynt). co u y a r di
wa is, owh o neial A ubaualomee ?

mde v. aLong wfcopyr ? P

S . 54 doen'+ eilotu omy m" m i
o oaß nta. Aays ATeoèiAlima amdp
omlnoi '4 CoPYA".
40 ' mdup hm tt ununu m'unked
0 CopuA pd. S aa s. S4+ w Ccmo
Aeemlunuos
aun01 s Ap ht LAt w wa u u N o
Rooal hUs
oUuailabl .e mel.
eocptovt" by
culho &oR a cioam pd AMe
wwen
ConaoALd oite
awalty
eAAduay i l t emmes Mto thw puubuo doman
But thu
lanoM taek Ato C Ueote
ww becomA a hMmanm AtAmeRM h o n e ho
Ao. CmelSM u/S. 14l s eciat wnoeunply"jnou's
meha w i e n PUM
wonmg Mm h e o c
a

Mvol R
o Canmm.oulOiAup tn wo

Rt to atthibwiomy O patiig at
uotntn
oaap o
a RotVau
Owl0s 4 Apl a s o attnb" hawe NRmpNaAMA
LOrdX. Osod resA
Mmteaniy wwhueh eommis ug aubu M

C.e. ctatiën). mo
podlueluom- m t
buyomd
cam nane eccwel s . 14
tdbauriOn gots
plaotohian
not necesAauly a ALPLdUucnen maiyb
ramaim adapim

But w t tdatthnlo"
Undnty ng adeL0 blena
belamat
0ubuine
Ldimild te thn wok
Mamtenamee o gntgnmy o thu w0i
CAakd a punpoe' amd d uloon wthh

umoi har o ackd

D uALd im a dauputablimamei AMe ,

wbiea to auwhe
Ouuthol ' hao nt to quand R U w e e h
t not guat amy modyoA onargAMeM
t e c l i m g omouR 4npAt

AM waminm
u enpt" 3 mosL noodod im pacieal nduobu
hot
ue t Erhbte Pantieular anNo
mais amt
oAer. iloim> oed" G we- "
othue Ac
Co V UoI J
Rausld m a A m t Dal HC case mteqAuy wRt
Om aNenntet w n e wek
nan
m dlemialusaod
allnoin
dOmoniovM e g d m emeuA UUhn
o t n t woida, Deotnom = not n a e a m e h ak
oll (mot a w.o). wlHC obmom
Sostce o weik>ew Com yom peieNR
ouato", m, m ec. n Poablu
0thth t noN to be Am M um Adh dmm
QWunout abovt bugvww.g O paumUr
tAops oiatvg wt wowdm' intaruty be
t u Du HC' opimom flamed

mbrputn nmouy cLe Oce. t hawt oh wMOK

p034oly 1 k O v. ajcmieins] maya
Rwk" d be owhonwm accdmguy
Onennlichunal wO

yOu peceine, omgs u

buulding huda in

AmeluAhidTaad bel Hc]

p i i a o -- apptyeng to. sE2 (1Dlaa),[mwa4
S 38 B Moial At o n pufomme
Magos daeatmer -> lemnimology dat1 Um
CuntaoiA N o Real wmclislamding

bioacaa lIAs" -> h Ahal

acc to Regiálatna p b ' apl aA k
od S.C+ dos
hot AR

NIn 994 t wos a apl t gwem to pufomA

( i 0om At )
miu
a01 - m a ntn t0 pefe
' R E to at bution Aubw doam eacaban >

Rimnnt"
R Rt bo imegauy aloo

Covlioct a&amtn.
90I2 pTOWA t . 9a,a)

e n s s moAal
S 386 Cb) othaoueloiy Duut

S.38)
S.32D imteguty enama oj waD4(hMs 57
luchmeal

eaepA Louung amy ath

picgucunal
oo

Rahemv
Teemmeol
CemuolLA
[21.09.21
• S.57 and S.38B discusse
• CASES
1. Raj Grewal v. UO
◦ Facts — RG is famous architect and has designed government buildings and he has received
recognition and has been honoured for it.
‣ Among his designs is the hall of nations and the Nehru Pavilion. The ITPO has mooted
the proposal of demolition of these structure for purpose of renovation and
modernisation. RG objected — they are of national importance and heritage and
therefore shouldn’t be demolished. These structures are important and one aspect
which court referred is that the architectural feat represents what progress india
has made in all these years in sustainability and engineering
‣ Backdrop — a comm. specifically formed to id heritage structure in india was in
progress at that time and had not taken any decision whether they were heritage
sites which need to be preserved [had they been considered heritage, they would not
be demolished.] no obligation to protect it
‣ Eventually pltff moved to court and got no relief — court initially said that the comm.
has taken no decision and till that time no order could be passed. Later, they said
that the comm considered the after and did not extend preservation to these
structure
‣ An appeal was made. But during its pendency, structure were demolished. So, appeal
lost relevance
‣ The present Suit — demanded the recreation of these structures as compensation
against the tearing down of architectural work of pltff which infringed his his rt to
integrity u/s.57.
• In the suit, there were some questions framed by the court which were asked to the sr.
Counsel representing the pltf
• the result = the court said the response is ambivalent and they haven’t been recorded in the
judgmen

1. Author of these buildings. How? —> S.2(b) — work of arch includes buildings and structure and
artistic work includes — work of architecture
◦ What about S.13(5)? —> artistic character and designs and not to processes or methods
of construction. This deals with ‘how’ the building is constructed and not the actual
construction of the building. It doesn’t take away from the artistic chr and design
being that of the architect

2. “Merely prepared drawings on the board”? ——> the authorship is over the artistic chr and
design. So, the engineer etc have not contributed to that and therefore only the architect is
relevant to the design and no one else

3. “Best architecturally drawings …” —> Taj Mahal Hotel wrong side facing —> artistic chr would
not be affected which side it faces, the authorship still lies with the architect. Because — 2
possibilities — 1.construction veered off so much that design does not match the actual building
[here it is transformative in nature] and 2., some changes which necessarily occurred and which
we can see as a matter of construction. SUBSTANTIALLY THE DESIGN IS RETAINED AND SO
IS THE AUTHORSHI

4. Rt over the land ——> where or how much area the structure is occupying — can architect
exercise his copyright over this?
◦ Architect can’t have claim on the land and only the design of the building. He can’t claim
right over this whole land, copyright deals with artistic sorta works and not the land in
itself. This is important perspective to understand — THIS QUESTION IS THE CRUX OF
THE ISSUE. Copyright doesn’t regulate property, it governs intellectual creations
◦ Tangible v. Intangible — claiming right over the property because of copyright would be
conflict with the law and the right which is a constitutional right granted to property
holders as opposed to statutory grant under copyright. The Q. Here would be => whose
right would be given priority, the constitutional right which can’t be taken away unless
there’s a specific law or copyright act which doesn’t talk about taking away someone’s
property and giving the rights to the architect just because of some sort of copyright
existing over the building.

5. The ambit architecture covered by the CRA is clearly defined. And is limited to only
architectural buildings of artistic nature and not all buildings. S. 57 —> independent of copyright
but applies to architects who are authors of architectural works

— Observation —>
 ◦ If building is heritage or of nat’l importance? — positive obligation of the state to
preserve and protect it. It supports integrity right directly, set out in this context
◦ [doubt] —. How u/S.57 does the concept of heritage buildings come up? There is no such
explicit mention
‣ Context — pltff says this is the architectural work of mine existing and it has now
been demolished which affects my rt to integrity. The court is essentially looking at
heather the building can be subject to such control by the architect
‣ ACC. To the court — heritage buildings — positive obligation to protect. In a ways this
is not an interpretation of S.57 but how the heritage law would aid in giving
architect a sort of a phantom right
‣ They say that apart from S.57, if we were to accord this sort of control to the
architect, what would it mean? — this will heavily interfere with rights of owners of
the buildings, be an impairment to modernisation in context of socio-economic
development of the country. Conflict — the court identifies conflict in law and in
policy respectively
‣ [doubt] How is demolition amounting to interfering with integrity of the author?
‣ The action has to be prejudicial to the reputation of the author u/s.57 —> how
does demolition affect the reputation,
• the fact that a building has architectural design and was associated with
the architect and known to others by this association, the common reasoning
would not consider modernisation — this may affect the honour and
reputation of the author
• In line with the above question, can an owner of a painting destroy the
painting? Destruction of the painting would effectively raise the question wrt
honour and reputation of the artist
• — in this decision, the Del HC made a distinction between architectural works
and other works. For instance, the canvas of a painting doesn’t have inherent
value, only the painting gives it value. Unlike buildings which on their own have
a functional value over which it has an artistic character, these two are thus
distinct. And the additional conflict b/w the owner of the jilting and the
architecture has to be constructed in the act itself — referencing to several
permitted acts u/s 5
• Destruction can amount to infringing integrity rights but the point is whether
this applies to architectural works or not
• so, the pltff argues — copyright act doesn’t make any distinction between the medium of work.
So, even in case of a land, artistic work should subsist.
◦ S.14, doesn’t talk about medium. Why does it matter?
◦ The judge asked, the right to integrity is wrt DMM and other act, so how is it that we
can construct “other act” to meet demolition. Explanation u/s57 — display not to
satisfaction of the author == can’t be claimed u/s 57. Effectively the judge asked DMM is
something which you see over a work, it has to perceived. How do you judge something
which is not present
◦ So who is to stop the owner to not display some work [see explanation to s.57]. No
 display, no perception, no infringement
• the defendant argues — S.57 only authorises restraint against DMM and does not allow
mandatory injunction for recreation to the author. So, the author wanted recreation at some
place of equivalent importance, defendant says no such remedy is possible
• S.57(b) — DMM only and not total destruction which causes the work to cease to exist.
Further, this enables the architect to restrain DMM of the work so as to take away the
artistic element thereof —— when the work is wholly removed, this question doesn’t arise
• So, reference has been made by def — which do not completely support the defendant
◦ R. Iyer’s def of “mutilate” — less than total destruction, deprived of some original part
◦ []’S def — no concrete solution. Very conflicting
• PLff offers a rejoinder — prejudicial to the owner of the building [????]

[23.09.21
[Raj Grewal continued
• the court says that it is true that def owed a duty to the plff — acc to the judge the duty is
— inform the plff in advance of the same, give reasons and allow plff an opportunity to
whatsoever he wanted to do with the building or structure before demolishing the same.
According to the judge this duty wasn’t properly carried out. To that extent the def has
erred
• But, apart from this duty, the law says
• 1. Clear distinction seen in treatment of architectural works and other artistic works. So,
court says that specific acts [mentioned in the judgment have been considered permitted
requiring no authorisation from the architect for any of those acts] these revisions are
specifically aimed at the buildings and the architect, the building has sits own value and
functional aspects, the design of the building does get protection u/s 13 due to wits artistic
chr but once you’re claiming artistic work protection on the building, you come in a conflict
with the rts of the owner of the building. [CRUX OF THE MATTER]
• ACC, to judg
◦ there are various regulations which attach to land. Say, specifications of the building and
the owner may have to carry out modifications with his property which is completely legal
under specific regulations set out for that purpose,
◦ the second point — is the kind of right copyright is, when you place it on a question of
priority with a constitutional right. According to the court — rt to prop can only be taken
away when there is a specific law explicitly does so. There is none which woudl reprieve
prop owner of his rts. ACC to the court, the statutory right [copyright <<< constitutional
right] , will have to bend
◦ The court says — architects moral rights cannot stand against the right of the owner of
property in doing with the property as he wishes
◦ The court deciphers — whether destruction could come within the ambit of “other acts”
u/s 57. The court refers to ordinary meanings of these terms DMM
‣ Distortion — twisting or perversion of words to change its sens
‣ Mutilation — rendering a thing imperfect by causing destruction of one or more of its
 parts.
‣ “Other Acts” have to be read in the above context. [ejusdem generis
‣ The judge says DMM are not similar to demolition.
◦ The judge says that the only rights which can be infringed under S.57 are —
‣ 1. Claim to be architect of the building [misattribution
‣ 2. Make changes in such a way to make the design something different from what
the architect had perceived, and still proclaim that the architect is the author
‣ I like or dislike what i perceive and what I don’t perceive, I don’t judge
• S.57 — even if demolition were to be part of DMM, it has to affect the honour and rep of the
architect which isn’t possible if there’s no architectural structure in the first place
• Requirement of urban planning, economic reasons, technical reasons, necessity to get permits
to build >>>> Moral right so Architect
• S.57 — wrt architectural works do not include demolitions — owners have right to do so.

If we were to consider reasonability of such work what would your opinion be

• “honour and dignity” don’t matter if there’s no building — flawed — because it was already
known about the building — demolition would be considered disrespecting the architect
• v textual interpretation, w/o considering that some rts of the author are affected. Approach
is not just — some right of the authors should have been ensured
• Can we say that the conclusion was affected by the building already being demolished? The
court did say inform, but it doesn’t matter if demolition is all w/i rts of the owner and not
concerned with the architect. This is insensitive
[this case is important because s57 is broadened]
This ratio is difficult to apply in other situations

Situation:
• if i purchase a painting and its original and i burn it. Is s 57 attracted
• Million copies of a book published, you burn one unit in my possession — is that covered u/s 57
• Does s57 cover only original manuscript etc and not copies? Rt of integrity in context of
destruction to copies is a little far-fetched but if i were to scribble something in the book
which would be prejudicial to honour and reputation of the author, and i publish it, would
moral rt of integrity stand
◦ It seems that destruction applies only to originals and the remaining aspects of rt to
integrity apply to copies as well
 ◦ Doubt] i bought a painting, i no longer want it how do i dispose it off
‣ If we look at Raj Grewal case we see that there are some laws we need to
acknowledge in case of buildings and land. And the concept of property ownership is a
Consti rt in. Conflict. There is no such conflict existing wrt painting. So, the og
painting that you buy, and if you burn it s.57 is attracted. How do you dispose it —
sell/donate/gift it
‣ Say landowner wants to demolish, architect has copy rt —> Raj Grewal case says no
authorisation required, you could go ahead and demolish it. As long as you don’t
change the design [perceivable] then those changes need to be proved by architect.
No perceivable? No permit from the copyright holder read
‣ Counter-opinion —> for smn i devoted time and effort, form a reasonable practice it
doesn’t bode well for the author — it all reflects on the architect and not the owner
wrt quality of the art.
‣ Certain situation allow. For demolition but giving a blanket statement is not right and
probably a little balancing would’ve helped
‣ Public domain — s.14 isn't attracted — but s.57 goes on so, change even after
Copyright ends, needs to be approved by legal representatives.

Amarnath sehgal is the known for his bronze works, he was approached by Indian govt to create
an architecture work for Vijayan Bhavan. He made a mural of bronze applied to a wall directly.
In this case, the mural which had distinct bronze pieces spread over the foyer of the floor. Took
him around 5 years — 1957 to 1962. The creativity was original. The fact that was included in
the VB made it more culturally important to the extent that the govt of the day had
commended AS for the mural, there was int’l recognition for the mural and AS. For this work and
other works as well
This mural stayed in VB for several years and then eventually, in 1979… unceremoniously w/o
authorisation, it was taken off the wall with all its pieces. It was “dumped” in the store room in
such a way that some pieces went missing. From then till 1990s — AS went pillar to post and
asked for help in placing the mural back to og position. He failed. He brought it before the
court
AS says mural is my artistic work and what has been done is violation of my rt to integrity
especially under S.57, now he says that he wants to be compensated for it and a decree passed
saying that the remaining parts of the mural, returned to him and that I should be allowed to
recreate it wherever i want
The govt — this is in our ownership. We can do what we deem fit. Govt said it was removed in
the 70s why are you filing suit in 90s outside scope of limitation
Obviously — if you look at callousness shown by the govt to artist who gave cultural importance
to VB.
• this case demonstrated the use of language specifically being used in case of copyright, anr
such case in Dead Sea Scroll Case
• The original provision [s.57] has changed a lot since then. Independently of the author’s
copyrigth or even after the assignment wholly or partially, the author has rt to claim
authorship and damages in case […]
◦ From the present state of s57 — it has undergone several changes and earlier [1957,
unamended] — any change you could make to a work would come under rt to integrity.
Literally anything. And this was not something present in the Berne convention. Under
the invention, a linkage was made b/w honour and reputation and changes. ACC to our law
makers , the Indian provision was Berne+, why [??
◦ Dressed down the provision to now have this linkage in. Place. To have such a broad
provision = problems. So make it Berne and link it specifically to honour and rep, and this
change happened and the fact that these distortions happened during the term of
copyright only got removed during the 2012 amendment. Now, any distortion after
copyrigth expires, moral rts considerations still arise

[24/09/21
[Amarnath Sehgal continued]
——————————————————————————————————————
• Letter sent to pltff, wrt to job of making mural
• Language
28.09 21

TOday ontme yestday 4 ubina s oloeum m X

Coal moles /MAal RAs -

Cataj mgh Pan

041ens O glumptt mio hind o
mert b w phod & d u e d o
Ho0 J. diAcUssLs how CaPR Aet
P0A oMA a dunucio
+Wauvess

Rotua R a e l i a l pA0blemw
Webu ISRA 4 CoPyrt socwei
C0mbwnow tuw tumunologues MWm 0 Laen d)
mouces Mly To Del
ISRA ALNdiAg
LHOces k1x Seatuny Capaenp
ThLTPL muie a e e
recwe royaiy" thus
malnenahlu ut t

wo wha

Royalies to Ponkat Uahar

we'& omonu wmbino -US noia Tradlu
lahm
wwtO0PP.
Moial Rt Ceontd Tcane
S o A a maw Poumu N
nitis Akka CPreduet)
Pa wn (anel ).
A Cm. mediabo)
Suha Aneluuerd Nanak enon Pah , ntiall
AKB uLos ounleos who wa placed Auga
fouru
drAAls nmmang pouuon
i -a&m
nihe unne matkd uulh
vriduw lugelilts
POmmw had
(unuluaiy) mw
Chuehk mul nglamlue
to nwootnm
uncw reenAoUNg th um dugual ur" by
Pournw
P anw a u m a Camomg O t u u ) - he m hh
t

He youiA
fhblim
a
ARAnaM eelnees pu nG
M AKe wan mchaMA Ob olne o ua
Do Wme
wateaad
Tww COAL UA u
oloes M a qlimpLe i t o uhot a
duclo
ol
fun emtmo0raple v d
m neap0 ibliu 4 al t DW
auae L 4 a agtemenb
u h a t iu thv duty a dure cto% . Loc
/ bu, dureeuO alno nadl
to do duat o DOP &
pro-dmen comrall ime 4 monu)r powine
tSom exra
clauaes akoub ho.
dsaeloaw
malial DALOCh.
o put m pUapletive h
As o t eeun mg CofYUpiAUdeL l coprmt aet
thyhme ho FO_d eK
t mA a ut not dual
tA olus CopyRE weAd bat h haA Creatine
no p l e e

n gudgm
p . 42) Alkka Achmauldges
(nat &0l) Pannw a duu do
1eata
uhy o y

I , eaulakle duuMOn {
DeeeloE nat
9oyaaes I ot
haAAUMG,
quin neyalis olue io mo
capital

p.eRomeis to
LOme o
Alv
betomameA 2ndha ang
w e foou om Unk cabtal
ohlslo 's Ce Rake auuay en
P:46) n g marAoramam quatcd
ureconu hieng ealomem
om a alue aMamiNrhup be ecen ded to director
3
5.449.48 uattamamap nahiowty imtepsteo
not eepiabl oluuclonaI touens
4udqe extendp Oknalue
Dolue COmUubuuOMA 'N
ovalammAhp
noA be ttd.

P. 50

o
s.5t S s2 dww no weUig
RAR
Rnatad ?
Lannuta
Pt o nlue eaaR mmhip
vouniaa
eam he w oLOre
y
ne) Chene dr ndh
OP-pleabl whAm volunnoay
mow A u"4 wniee awlhoo s mafm T

mal ele
Sn aneh a casl
1. FinAt iteria wountany waweAs ARE
LAaAm mp pamong
ARG
ACCUplakle
Acceplohe
0pe On avluoiw
wOwld A ephend

twoWd
CyeA, AO
mede
meuo wlual
wual pAMaence
uneouaLU phUAence ao well
Ude caw
ao
u
piotielEd)
 30.09.21 TOPIC CoPy RIG HT SOCIE TES
4AA HaauAg
Aat banknotes
8. Damisn MAUnn uuieln ocl Rurd 84, OU0 QAEC
to om1 oRnat t0 reproduuee m OK. Bamk Nots
ww pMt ub at. h i atuat qme a eucn
Co as J a h thi Momey Run. hey Aaid
A Muatte nunt
o tocmaulnov t M o ools mWAM
uit oYAt? REAL NEWSJ]
oACOUUy Rulamn a m a s mhu mo
MDld nan bem h u HL says

He mmdrd emmentug m n u pucl?

Could u blamk aAMnesh qu a eOPA P alkon

O G o t pilee> h i monuy eomed y a AMaiMam

to oe a h e l t weR
Cy art.

> t ubuctive. But a eulamk camwas Ahould

thuy geb piotction ?
reclwed
g-thn Riovmoma durt tape ant p c e

ploucce,th an, n am PArctid

H omK LoMaAA mpuyH

wolo moi Aicwe MotuoUdn. y? ucomae
n n aAL mk eOMmaAlA
eocatmmee miaM M}wngmmt

L0melnina eOpRLALd
olon C uO AMpRLARMUg on d a dhmLd
vet sueee piotuetomYou a/u quwmg prolualA

but wous Cawas+ peuuontatlubh

psent"+ exbat spues

Cenlol be pilALd
hBamk eomuo t o u n - wfo copAt
miams tha RAhunon In0 moral AA
OU p N m t uwfo a

C plolnam ulinAm wOSh ucoune al

-

apeelie plaaeemint ttc

o h uki dhe
money ho beem "takem
44 h upmaika m ehe eounwas
beem
Co thuis ANu mUorh u h u e h h a
wumenu e n io m a m a t a Uhi idea
th is am
antnAA.
40 it m t aclually Btomk
woiuloèt be poaumumg nulptil
w t wn't o t Abrectim?
Wwy dnold e qutstuon th leuel o{ Ououy ?
L0olly acceptas a t n g i
L HOmpshin v. uphalotiny

ARau Cropanmamslur
atimt's mlent ?
wo
nk0 un
AOmwaRis a m ° t
m p l u uamn
mkimgmt mamaluwe pauanto a
wth a dK
eut 4 uo elae mmqmi ?
onlk camwa - t

w n mtmgemt
H Comuo n i pAsblim
Aumg my
0n namaluwe nat n
m am
amy
labu, thu udgml
wmlo Placemt add, maamun o wnt ?-s.s
muuswm could place it acc. to
Aniin m COnutmunee

aniAte ualui wy
ndy arhol ' cam qts
oonllact i me &my nomal aupemkt can
emt ot.