PROTECTION OF MULTIMEDIA WORKS UNDER

COPYRIGHT REGIME- ANALYSIS

DOCTRINAL WORK

Submitted in the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of the Post-
Graduation Degree of LL.M (Intellectual Property law)

To The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai.

Under the guidance and supervision of

Mrs. R. AARTHI RATHNA

School of Excellence in Law, The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai.

Submitted by

NAME: HARI KRISHNAN. G

REG. NO: IPL2103

I YEAR- LL.M – Intellectual Property Law

SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW (SOEL)

1
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Doctrinal research titled PROTECTION OF MULTIMEDIA

WORKS UNDER COPYRIGHT REGIME submitted for the award of L.L.M Degree by
HARI KRISHNAN.G, (IPL2103), Department of Intellectual Property Law, The Tamil Nadu
Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, during the academic period 2021-2023 under my
supervision and guidance. This is his original work and that this work has not formed the
basis for any award of any Degree, Diploma, Associate ship, Fellowship and Titles in this
University or any other University or other similar institution of higher learning.

Mrs. R. AARTHI RATHNA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
PLACE: SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW
DATE:

Dr. LUCKY GEORGE LL.M., PhD

HEAD OF IPL DEPARTMENT
SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN
LAW

2
 DECLARATION

I, HARI KRISHAN. G (IPL2103), Department of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

LAW do hereby declare that the research work titled Protection Of Multimedia Works
Under Copyright Regime-Analysis submitted for the award of L.L.M Degree by the
Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, during the academic period 2021-
2023 is my original work and that this work has not formed the basis for the award of any
degree, diploma, associate ship, fellowship and the titles in the University or any other
University or other similar institution of higher learning.

DATE:

HARI KRISHNAN. G
PLACE: IPL2103
DEPARTMENT OF IPL

3
Sl. no CHAPTERS AND SUB-CHAPTERS Page no

ABSTRACT 5

1 INTRODUCTION 6

1.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

1.2 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

1.3 RESEARCH PROBLEM

1.4 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1.6 LITERATURE REVIEW

1.7 CHAPTERIZATION

2 COPYRIGHT AND MULTIMEDIA

2.1. COPYRIGHT PROTECTION UNDER MULTIMEDIA

2.2. UNCOPYRIGHTABLE WORKS IN MULTIMEDIA

2.3. COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR MULTIMEDIA

COPYRIGHT ISSUES IN MULTIMEDIA

3 3.1. COPYRIGHT ISSUES IN THE MEDIA INDUSTRY

4 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES ON MULTIMEDIA UNDER

COPYRIGHT LAW:

4.1. POSITION IN US

4.2. POSITION IN UK

4.3. PROVISIONS UNDER INDIAN COPYRIGHT LAW

5 CASE LAWS

6 CONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

4
ABSTRACT:
With the fast technological advances of the computer and the Internet, multimedia
information is winding up progressively boundless. Individuals of all foundations can make,
adjust and appropriate multimedia information around the globe. Multimedia has basically
introduced another time of correspondence and data stream, which has significantly affected
society. Creators have more chances to make content, explicitly in the multimedia position.
Furthermore, the licensed innovation law assumes a key job in securing the estimation of
multimedia works. Be that as it may, in actuality, it is difficult for the legitimate framework
to adapt to changes regarding the organization and substance of multimedia works. In this
paper, we address the idea of multimedia, the job of copyright, and the advancements that can
be utilized to secure the copyrights of multimedia work. We additionally examine current
issues on multimedia copyrights on the Web and present our recommendations for
multimedia copyright assurance on the Web.

Keywords: Content, Copyright, Project, Multimedia.

5
 1. INTRODUCTION:

Copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted by law to the producers and creators
of forms of creative expression such as literary, artistic, musical and cinematographic works.
These rights bestow on the copyright owner the control over the use of his work like their
reproduction and distribution for a limited duration. Copyright was formulated as a means of
protecting the creator’s right to many uses of their original protected works including
reproduction, dissemination, display and most importantly to receive profit from that work.
With the advent of Multimedia, especially the internet and digital technology, there have
been many changes in laws governing this basic right.1

The concept of multimedia is extremely wide and encompasses within itself several
categories of material which include text, sounds, audio, video, images, graphics,
presentations, live videos of speakers and performances, and so on. A multimedia work may
have several copyrightable elements, usually including a motion-picture element or other
audio-visual elements, or a sound recording element. For copyright registration, it is
important to identify the separate copyrightable elements contained in the multimedia work.
Identifying the elements helps to determine which application form to use and what type of
material to deposit. This element may be in the form of film, videotape, videodisk, or CD-I.2

Generally, copyright protection is available to multimedia under literary (software program),

artistic (images), cinematographic films (films or videos), dramatic (plays), sound recording
(musical works), and photographs. Protection of the rights of the creators and owners of the
Copyright becomes difficult due to the variety of rights available to copyright owners under
the ambit of multimedia.

 Infringement in multimedia involves

 Copying the works of a creator without his permission

 Distributing multimedia products other than for educational purposes

 Creating prints of literary or artistic works without prior permission of the creators

1
https://www.academia.edu/24963176/
PROTECTION_OF_MULTIMEDIA_WORKS_UNDER_COPYRIGHT_REGIME_INTELLECTUAL_PROPERTY_RIGH
T_SUBMITTED_BY_SUBMITTED_TO
2
LegalserviceIndia.in(multimedia Intoduction)

6
  Dubbing and selling, through any multimedia product a sound recording without the
prior permission of its creator.

The view that all multimedia works are capable of being protected as compilation suffers
from difficulties. Firstly, the compilation work must result in "the selection or arrangement"
of two or more categories of works. Some multimedia works are created entirely or
substantially by the production of new works in which two or more of the categories of
protected works are created specifically to produce the multimedia works. While in this
example the individual components would be protected by copyright, it is unclear whether
this process of creating a multimedia work would be sufficient to satisfy the statutory
requirement that the compilation result from the "selection or arrangement" of these other
works.

1.1. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:

Copyright protection is automatically acquired/created when an "original" work of

authorship is fixed in a tangible medium. Some types of works of authorship that can be
copyrighted are literary, musical, dramatic, pantomimes and choreographic, pictorial, graphic
and sculptural, motion pictures and other audio-visuals, sound records, and architectural
works. To further define "original": an original is that in which the origin of the object being
copyrighted owes itself to its exclusive author and was not copied from any other pre-existing
source. "Fixed" means that the item has been sufficiently permanized or stabilized for a
period of more than transitory duration" (Brinson). A copyright notice may be used to secure
copyright protection but since the United States was a party to the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works which Convention affected artists and authors
internationally and multimedia involves much in the way of copyrighting, certain copyright
considerations for multimedia developers and publishers have also discussed along with fair
use or the legal right to be able to use another copyright holder's work or portion of that work.

Multimedia and multimedia materials are combinations of data, texts, still images,
animations, moving images, and sounds. Multimedia materials may be found on videotapes,
audiotapes, and laser disks; digitized multimedia materials may reside on floppy disks, CD-
ROMs, digital tapes, and the hard disks of networked computer servers, including World
Wide Web servers. (Princeton) Definitely, multimedia comprises a parking lot of many
different those brands, shapes and contexts that are to be assumed by any user or viewer of
multimedia to be protected by copyright. It is with this assumption, at this early stage of

7
development, that the creation of multimedia can be a maddening, circuitous maze of
undefined latitudes. With the ever-quick advancement of computer and web technology, the
legal profession remains abashed in its efforts to disentangle the web mess. The copyrighted
text, images, motion pictures, software and music and the circumstances under which their
use in the creation of educational multimedia may be considered "fair use."

In creating a multimedia or derivative work, the author of that work must have permission to
use any element of a previously copyrighted work, and, since we are to assume that each item
is copyrighted, obtaining permission to use can be overwhelming and costly. For instance, for
a photograph, image, sound or video clip, the author must locate who to credit for each of the
elements and send a request to use the element from the copyright holder. Multimedia
developer/publisher One of the easiest solutions to avoid infringement of copyright is for the
developer/publisher to create his own original work or to use only those items which are in
the public domain. Then, ultimately the developer/publisher would have his work
copyrighted and hopefully registered to ensure that the work is protected to its fullest and that
the developer/publisher has the most favourable position should his/her work be infringed
upon. Then again, technology on the Internet is advancing rapidly, and becoming so that
there are no mechanical or cost barriers to reproduction (unless caught in the act) just the
moral issues that exist from reproducing copyrighted material.

1.2. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF STUDY:

The Scope of the research project is to visualize the main issue. Whether the creation of the
multimedia works leads to the creation of new work or is it mere copying of the various
original subject matter like cinematographic film, sound recording etc., especially in India.
The objective of the study is to give an overview of the protection of multimedia under
copyright. The study also tries to cover what does copyright protected and what isn't
protected. The study focuses on the legal rights of copyright owners in multimedia industries.
The study mainly focuses on copyright issues in multimedia, how we use fair dealing and
reasonable portion of copyright.

1.3. RESEARCH PROBLEM:

Multimedia is still in its early stages, it is difficult to apply copyright laws to it. As a
result, a new model for copyright protection through multimedia is being pursued. The
disadvantages of stretching current copyright laws should be overcome by a well-
designed copyright model and technology. Because Computer technology has

8
 advanced so much and it is critical to protect Copyrighting rights, strict rules on
copying and distributing must be enforced. Uncopyrightable works and works for
which copyright protection has ended are referred to as “Public Domain” works.
1.4. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS:

Multimedia work is not sufficiently protected under Copyright law.

1.5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The methodology adopted for the purpose of conducting research on this paper is
purely Doctrinal research. This project data has been collected from various secondary
resource’s comprising of articles, books and journals and e-books and web sources,
judgments from cases and journals, which has been explained more detail in the study.
1.6. LITERATURE REVIEW:
1. In this article “The History of Indian Copyright Act”, James T.C., (2002)
describes various amendments carried out in from time to time. Responses of the
international community to the challenges of digital technologies in the form of
WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty
(WPPT) are presented as the prominent copyright issues in the digital era are
identified. The author finds that the Indian Copyright Act has many issues are
still left unaddressed.
2. Julian Rodriguez Prado, “Copyright and Multimedia”, Kluwer law
International, The Hague London and New York 2003 the author has an
approach to the history of Multimedia works is not easy due to every nature of
these creations. It could be an extension or derivation of previously created
works and media.
3. In this Article “Recent Developments In Copyright Law”, Dwayne K.
Goetzal, Tex. Intellectual Property, L.J. 455 (1999), discuss some of the
recent copyright-related decisions that are published in volume 48 and 49 of the
United States Patent Quarterly, Second edition (U.S.P.Q.2d). Having addressed
the issue of copyrightability, the court turned to the issue of infringement.
4. In this Article “Multimedia and Copyright”, Wee-loon Ng-Loy,8 Sac LJ 80
(1996) analyzes the history of copyright and reveals that copyright is the legal
framework most often used to meet the challenges posted by technology. Hence
the types of copyright subject matter have expanded from the printed word.
Copyright was primarily concerned with including new works thrown up by the

9
 technology such as Photographs, sound recordings, cinematographic films,
broadcasts and cable programmes, and most recently computer software.
Similarly, with the development of new means of exploiting works, such as
broadcasting by wireless means and later via satellites, copyright owners have
been vested with corresponding new rights.
5. In this Article “ Enforcing Copyrights In the Age of Multimedia” , Carolina
Seaz, Rutgers Computer & Tech L.J 351 (1995) examine an individual or
entity producing a multimedia product must proceed carefully or else violate the
Copyright Act of 1976. Perhaps the easiest way a multimedia producer can
acquire content for a project without accidentally infringing pre-existing
copyrights is to have employees produce content or instead use only those works
which are in the public domain.
6. Seth Karnika, Computes Internet and New Technology laws (2013), in the
view of the author the correct interpretation is that multimedia work is indeed a
combination of separate works in which different copyrights vest in authors.
That it cannot in all cases be treated as one work which is only a computer
program itself as certain academicians hold.
7. Jonas J Ruby, the author of this article deals with multimedia and its protection
with a special focus on the fair use doctrine. Fair use doctrine as given in
Section-107 of the US Copyright Act, 1976 a piece of copyrighted work can be
utilized for reproduction or any other means, if it is being used for any means
such as criticism, comments, news reporting, educational purposes, teaching etc.
then it is not an infringement of copyright.
8. In this article “ Fair use For Faculty- created Multimedia”, Laura N, Gasway
info & Comm Tech . L., 155 (1997), deals with “FAIR USE” is called the
safety value of US Copyright Law: It is a privilege in someone other than the
copyright owner to use a copyrighted work without seeking permission of the
copyrighted owner or paying royalties. In other words, activity that ordinary
would be infringement is excused if the use is fair, the fair use of copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono records or any other
means specified by that section for purposes such as as criticism, comments,
news reporting, educational purposes, teaching etc. then it is not an infringement
of copyright.

10
1.7. CHAPTERIZATION:
This project totally consists of Six chapters. They include the following:
Chapter I
The Introduction chapter deals with the overall need for the study, the background, the
literature review, the scope and the objective of the study.
Chapter II
The second chapter deals with the rights subsisting in multimedia products and
digitalization an overview. It also explains copyrights secured by the multimedia
producer. The protections are available for multimedia work under Patent and
Copyright.
Chapter III
The third chapter talks about the copyright issues in multimedia which are not covered
in the earlier part of the protection of multimedia work have been specifically this
chapter discussed films and sound recordings, computer programs.
Chapter IV
The fourth chapter deals with the Copyright laws in different countries on multimedia
protection like the US, UK and India.
Chapter V
The fifth chapter deals with case laws that dealt with multimedia protection.
Chapter VI
The conclusion chapter deals with concluding remarks and possible suggestions made
to preserve the protection of multimedia works under copyright.

11
 2. COPYRIGHT AND MULTIMEDIA:

Copyright is specific protection for specific types of creative works. Copyright protection
exists in the original work fixed in any tangible expression that is now known or
subsequently developed, from which it can be directly or through other means to
perceive, copy or spread with the help of machinery or equipment. the protection
provided by copyright is for the form of the work, not the meaning of the work. The
compiled form of your work can be represented by numbers stored in some media, so it is
also protected by copyright. You have the right to:

1. Reproduce copyrighted works in the form of copies or records.

2. Make derivative works based on works protected by copyright.

3. To the public through sale or other transfer of ownership, or through rental, lease or
loan Distribute copies or discs of works protected by copyright.

Therefore, as the copyright owner, you may sell, license, rent, and rent copyrighted
software to anyone of your choosing; you can make any number of copies; and can
prepare derivative works based on original but different. Unless you have signed a written
contract that gives you specific rights, you cannot do any of those things without
infringing it without owning the copyright. 3 Multimedia work is often instructional. The
authorship may include texts, photography, artwork, sounds, sculpture, music,
cinematography, choreography and etc.. A multimedia work may have several
copyrightable elements, usually including a motion picture element or other audio-visual
element or sound recording element

2.1. COPYRIGHT PROTECTION UNDER MULTIMEDIA WORKS:

Intellectual work is a work created or published by a person for the purpose of being known
by some means of communication. Under all the same conditions, it is recommended to
exercise moderate control over the access of such works, especially because of the potential
benefits, so it is clearer. However, the copyright law of February 19, 1998, lists the styles of
intellectual works protected by copyright; an important observation will be pointed out: these
are clear illustrative examples, not a complete and unambiguous list. Therefore, according to
Gandelman, texts, lectures, drama works, dance works, audio-visual works, photographs,
3
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-8037-digital-copyright-law.html

12
drawings, paintings, prints, illustrations, maps, modelling works, translations, computer
programs, compilations, dictionaries, etc. Other possible works" once you know what type of
copyright is protected by law, you need to emphasize the issues that authors of the digital or
educational content must pay special attention to in their works. Copyright law protects
"author's work". The act stipulates that the author's work includes later works in the form of
literary works.4

A work can be original, not novel or unique. Only a minimum of creativity is required to
meet the originality requirements. No need for artistic value or beauty. The work can contain
existing materials and must be original. When existing materials are incorporated into
alternative works, the copyright of the new work only covers the original materials provided
by the author. The developer's multimedia work contains a series of photographs taken by
photographers. The multimedia work as a whole is attributed to the developer, but the photos
are not. The copyrights of multimedia works do not include images and are only created by
the developer. The facts do not come from anyone and therefore are not original the
compilation of facts protected by copyright is limited to the originality of the author in the
field of selection, coordination and ordering of the facts.5

When an original work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression, copyright protection will
automatically occur. Registration with the Copyright Office is optional, but you must register
before filing an infringement claim. For works published after March 1, 1989, the use of
copyright notices is optional. The copyright statement can take any of the following three
forms: © followed by the date and name, and "copyright" followed by the date and name.
The right of reproduction is the right to copy, transcribe or imitate a work in a fixed form 6.
The right of modification is the right to modify work to create a new work. New works based
on existing works are called "derivative works." The right of distribution is the right to
distribute a copy of a work to the public by selling, renting, renting or lending. The right of
public representation is the right to recite, represent, dance, perform or display works in
public places, or disseminate them to the public. In the case of movies or other audio-visual
works, the sequential display of images of the works is considered a "performance".

The right of public display is the right to display or disseminate copies of a work to the public
directly or through movies, slides or television images in public places. In the case of movies

4
https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Copyright-Issues-in-Multimedia.pdf
5
Ieeexplorer on copyright protection on Multimedia
6
https://blog.ipleaders.in/copyright-digital-era/

13
or other audio-visual works, images that show the works out of order are considered
"exhibitions." Anyone who infringes any proprietary rights of the copyright owner is an
infringer.7 The developer scanned the photographer's copyrighted photos, used digital editing
software to modify the image, and included the modified version of the photo in the
multimedia work that the developer sold to consumers. Copyright owners can obtain actual
or, in some cases, legal damages from the infringer. The Federal District Court has the power
to issue injunctions to prevent or limit copyright infringement and order the seizure and
destruction of infringing copies. Under current law, the copyright period for works created by
individuals in the life of the author is plus 70 years. The copyright term for "works used" is
95 years from the date of the first "publication" or 120 years from the date of creation.
Employed works are works created by employees for their employers and certain types of
specially invited works.

2.2. UNCOPYRIGHTABLE WORKS IN MULTIMEDIA:

The Copyright Law excludes from its protection, in its Article 8, various activities and
common facts. According to Galdelman8, they are ideas, normative procedures, methods,
systems, projects and even the mathematical concepts in themselves, diagrams, plans or rules
that are intended for game development; business or straightforward mental acts; clear
structures, writings of authority acts; data for regular use; confined names and titles and
business or modern misuse of thoughts, data or information accessible in an original work.
Computer programs are protected by Act No. 9609 from February 19, 1998 (Article 2). A
Brief Orientation to Authors of Distance Learning Content Aiming to guide the authors of
digital content and/or copyrights, especially for distance learning in Computer Science, here
follows some suggested actions and care that authors should take during the development of
their work. Perfect and adequate circumstances are recommended, and those for which a past
authorization is indispensable. 9The compute program is protected a quick introduction to the
author of distance learning content guide the author of digital content or copyright, especially
for distance learning in applied science, here are some suggested actions and precautions that
the author should take during their work. Recommend perfect and appropriate situations
where prior authorization is essential for people in the development of distance education
content, the ideal situation in the general public domain and related terms is perfect for using
third-party works that are distributed under the CC license or that are already within the
7
www.legalraasta/create-copyright-multimedia-internet issues
8
Supra note 13
9
Article 1 and Article 8 of the WIPO Act

14
scope of proprietary rights. For example. images often appear portals such as Flicker, where
there are 20 million images available for download or production works in general, other
examples of websites that use CC licenses can be found by accessing freely accessible
Internet directories, such as catalog maintained by the organization responsible for
developing the Creative Commons license standard. The latest version is too old or the author
has been deceased for more than 70 years the work is correct.

2.3. COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR MULTIMEDIA:

A certain level of scientific accuracy in relation to new technology products. The reason is
obvious "multimedia" is a newly evolved term, as a newly evolved term brings vagueness
and uncertainty.10

During the last few years, multimedia products have experienced exponential growth on the
international market. This growth has in turn produced a need for their immediate protection.
Although multimedia products are works for the purpose of copyright and therefore are
protected as such, it is not immediately clear under which specific category of copyright
works, if any, they come. This is important, especially for those countries such as the UK,
where classification of work is necessary for the work to attract copyright protection.11

Multimedia products have introduced new forms of expression by combining the existing
ones with new technologies, thus creating a new concept. Many experts in the field state that
multimedia has signified the commencement of a new era in relation to communications. Its
essential ingredient is not solely interactivity, as one would expect (although interactivity still
is the key feature for this kind of communication), but the amount of data multimedia
products carry. Information as such has become extremely important. The more information
you possess, the more power you have. The possession of information is the key to the
successful creation and marketing of a multimedia product. The information contained in it is
the crucial factor when consumers decide to purchase. The need for free flow of information
around the world is the ultimate reason for the financing of communication industries. The
ability to distribute such information is the parameter by which financial success in the
international market is measured. Information has to do with development, evolution, culture,
civilization and state power. Interactivity is valuable in so far as it facilitates the manipulation

10
G. vercken. Guide du droit d” auteur pour les producers de multimedia commissioned by European
communities
11
Ibid

15
of information and responds to the needs of the user with regard to that particular
information.12

In the present era, multimedia is bound to be at the centre of development because the
advantages of multimedia applications are so great. The public's access to information and its
concept of communication will change the face of communication. There will also be an
impact on inter-human relations and on social structures. Space and time will become more
readily available and accurate and comprehensive information will become a possible target.
creators will be afforded more opportunities to create as a result of the great demand of great
demand for creative content in the new technology products. Communication and intellectual
property industries will be given more opportunities for exploitation and thus the
convergences of existing technologies will lead to the emergence of a new breed of product.
This will provide a substantial push for technology. Boundaries will be pushed out. Cultures
and ideas will work more closely together. It is time we started seeking solutions at an
international rather at a national level.13

3. COPYRIGHT ISSUES IN MULTIMEDIA:

Online copyright issues in India Online copyright issues related to online copyright issues
often appear in the following two main regulations:

(1) Copyright Act 1957 and

(2) IT Act, 2000.

(1) The Copyright Act of 1957 and Online Copyright Issues You can confidently rely on the
later provisions of the Copyright Act of 1957 to meet the challenges of knowledge and
technology. The definition of computer inclusion is very broad and includes any electronic or
similar equipment with information science capabilities. Therefore, tools that store or contain
copyrighted material that cannot be manipulated in this way violate the rights of the copyright
owner. The term programmer has been defined as a collection of instructions expressed in
words, codes, programs, or other forms, including means of code, that enable a computer to
perform collected tasks or achieve specific results. It should be noted that Section 13 (a) and
Section 2 (o) for reading together to grant copyright to technical personnel, and its
infringement will incur severe al and civil penalties. The inclusive definition of literary works

12
M. Radcliffe “legal issues in new media” willey &Sons, Chichester, 1995
13
Ibid

16
includes computer programmers, tables, and compilations, including computer databases.
14
Therefore, the legislature has taken appropriate protections and provided adequate
protections for computer copyrights.

Copyrighted material will be easily and secretly transmitted or disseminated to the public de
electronic means. In order to draw attention to this situation, the copyright law provides for a
situation equivalent to communication to the public. Therefore, in addition to distributing
copies such works, the public should also be allowed to watch, listen to, or appreciate any
work directly or through any display or broadcast method, regardless of whether the general
public actually sees, listens or appreciates it. The work so provided may be infringing
copyright. Communication with the public should be regarded as communication via satellite
or cable or other synchronous communication methods to overcome the home or residence,
including any hotel or hotel accommodation room. The copyright of a work that is copied or
published without the consent of the owner is an infringement. The Copyright Law stipulates
that if someone provides the article to the public by issuing a copy or disseminating the work
to the public, the article has been published. If the facts decipher the same case, they may also
be accused of copyright infringement. If an individual does not obtain the license granted by
the copyright owner or the copyright registrar under this law or violates the conditions of the
license so granted or any conditions imposed by the competent authority under this law, the
copyright in the work shall be deemed to be infringing. Work, try to do the privileges granted
by this law to the copyright owner, or when such communication constitutes an infringement
of the copyright of the work, any situation where the work is allowed to be used for
communication to the public unless you do not know and have no reasonable reason to
believe that this is done to the public Such exchanges will infringe the rights of the author.
Copyright law expressly exempts certain acts of infringement. Therefore, the legal owner
makes copies of such computer programmers from such copies to use PC programmers to
make copies for application scientists or to adapt the purposes provided completely or to
create backup copies purely for preventing loss, destruction or Act of 1957.

3.1. COPYRIGHT ISSUES IN THE MEDIA INDUSTRY:

One of the most reliable and surest tests to determine whether a copyright infringement
Tists is to determine whether the reader, viewer or viewer has clearly expressed their
opinions her reading or viewing two works and received a clear and unmistakable
impression that the work below appears to be a copy. It is believed that, in his case, the
14
Copyright Act 1957

17
 quality of the evidence is much higher, so that the facts of falsehood and harm cannot be
proven indisputably. Looking at e order as a whole, the bottom line is that given the
complexity of reality TV, monopoly rights cannot be granted unspecifically. Although the
assembled Bible enjoys copyright protection, you can enjoy this protection for all public
items that are already within the scope of proprietary rights. There is an extraordinary case
about the great boss of the truth program, in which the manufacturer Endemol Group sued
Sun TV and Vedanta Entertainment, who participated in the production of the Mallet
House program, infringed copyrights, accused of infringing the compilation format, and
seeking a court order against them. In addition to channel conflicts, here is also the
possibility of infringement to prevent other product slogans, series, names, musical works
or song lyrics from being infringed. The big makers of Big Boss Kannada, Prism tv and
Eenadu Kannada Television, are restricted according to court regulations. The article
supports the Lahiri Recording Company's order that its copyrighted song "Arrival" be
played in background of every episode in Kannada.

Currently, Indian television independent news service Pvt. has an order from HC in Stock
company and others. Contrast with the Yashraj Pvt movie. Ltd., which stated that a
amount of use of songs in TV shows does not constitute infringement.70 In 18 Motion
Pictures and other companies, Kolkata HC believes that the use of the song "mere sapno"
is less not the bench put aside the order gone by the one Judge and uplifted the restrictions
so imposed. However, the Appellants are still prohibited from broadcasting any
cinematographic film without the acceptable permission.

4. DIFFERENT COUNTRIES ON MULTIMEDIA UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW:

The multimedia works protection on copyright law is different in each country, in this the
countries such as India, United states and United Kingdom.

4.1. POSITION IN US:

When the framers of the United States Constitution met in Philadelphia to consider which
powers might best be entrusted to the national government, there appears to have been virtual
unanimity in determining that copyright should be included within the federal sphere.
Although the committee proceedings that considered the copyright clause were conducted in
secret, it is known that the final form of the clause was adopted without debate. In the first

18
significant copyright decision, Wheaton v. Peters,15 The Supreme Court, in an aside,
acknowledged the existence of the state law of common law copyright in unpublished
manuscripts. Thereafter, until the adoption of the Copyright Act of 1976, the dichotomy of
common law copyright under state law for unpublished works, and statutory copyright under
federal law for published works, was an accepted and integral part of our federal system.
Only in 1973, however, did the Supreme Court (or indeed, any court) squarely rule on the
issue of whether the constitutional grant of copyright power of Congress is exclusive or
nonexclusive.

In Goldstein v. California16, the Supreme Court held that the states retain concurrent power
to afford copyright protection to the works of authors as long as such protection does not
conflict with federal law. The Court noted that the grant of power under the Copyright Clause
is not by its terms said to be an "exclusive" grant. The Goldstein opinion is, then, oblivious to
reality in concluding that "... when some States do not grant copyright protection - and most
do not - that circumstance reduces the economic value of ta state copyright, but it will hardly
render the copyright worthless." If the Goldstein Court had concluded that the Constitution
deprived the states of all copyright power, the result could have been devastating to a large
number of works. As of the time of that decision, it would have meant that all unpublished
works, or at least those that had not thereto fore qualified for federal protection by
registration and deposit, could be copied with impunity. It is further arguable that work
having once entered the public domain by reason of state law protection might not thereafter
qualify for federal protection.17 One cannot, then, seriously quarrel with the Goldstein
conclusion that the Copyright Clause envisages concurrent rather than exclusive federal
power. But state laws, pursuant to such concurrent power, are, of course, subject to pre-
emption by federal statute. That is precisely what occurred under the Copyright Act of 1976,
which created a single federal system for both published and unpublished works. By reason
of such federal pre-emption, the states, concurrent copyright powers are now almost
completely without practical significance.

4.2. POSITION IN UK:

The copyright law of the United Kingdom grew up as an accidental by-product of censorship.
The invention of the printing press was of concern to all European governments. The number

15
33 U.S. (8 Peters) 591, 8L.. Ed. 1055(1834)
16
412 U.S. 546, 93 S.Ct.(1973)
17
Graham v John Deere Co 38 US

19
of printers increased in England, the King assumed a prerogative of granting privileges, and
the earliest copyright protection took the form of printers' licences granted by the Sovereign
to regulate the book trade and to protect printers against piracy. 18 These privileges became a
source of considerable profit to the Crown and in time were used as an instrument of
censorship by the authorities. Most took steps to control the dissemination of printed texts. In
England and Wales this took two forms: the creation of criminal offences for publishing
blasphemous and seditious material, and the introduction of a registration system. The latter
was run by a guild called the Stationers' Company. In 1556 the Stationers were granted their
original charter by Philip and Mary. It was the declared object of the Crown at the time to
prevent the dissemination of the reformed religion. The Stationers thereby in return operated
the registration system. Copies of every published work had to be registered at Stationers'
Hall in London. This had the effect of conferring on the Stationers' Company an extremely
valuable monopoly, and from the Stationers' point of view, the registration system fulfilled
the useful role of evidencing ownership of the copy. This is the origin of the term 'copyright',
i.e. the right to the copy; it is not derived from the right to stop others from copying an
author's incorporated in cinematographic or other audio-visual work.

4.3. PROVISION UNDER INDIAN COPYRIGHT LAW:

The Indian copyright law will be revised with the introduction of information on ant evasion
and rights management in the Indian copyright system, although India is not obliged to
introduce these changes because it is not a signatory of the WCT. With the 1994 amendment
to the Copyright Law coming into force on May 10, 1995, India's copyright enforcement
situation has improved. According to Ramdas Bhatkal of Bombay Volkswagen Playa
Mountain, "Before necessary law was revised, we encountered the problem of piracy of
referencing medical textbooks. At the time, we discovered that although the law was also
enforced. On the other hand, it was for us to apply for a search. This means that the hacker
has enough notice to request defensive action before the search warrant is implemented, so
we would rather agree to do a thing. Because these changes make copyright infringement an
identifiable crime, legal mechanisms can be used as a deterrent. 19 "Section 64 of the Indian
Copyright Act 1957" stipulates that any police officer who is nothing less than a lower-level
18
K.M. Garnett, “Copinger and Skone James on Copyright”
19
Section 64 of the Indian copyright law

20
police officer is convinced that of committed, is or is likely to commit infringement copyright
under section 63.

All copies of the work, no matter where it is located, and all copies and printing plates used to
make infringing copies, no matter where they are located, all seized copies and plates Printing
should be delivered to the magistrate as soon as possible. "Copying a book is similar to
stealing someone's jewellery box. "Organized plagiarism on a large scale is like robbing a
jewellery store or a bank. However, there is a big difference. In the bank robbery, the
newspapers were flooded with sensational news. The forces of the entire country, especially
the police, have been sent to arrest criminals, and even the judges who tried the case are
under general pressure to convict. The effect is electric. On the contrary, in the case of book
theft, the police defended their action by pointing out the background of the murder; the state
was indifferent to the desperate demands of the copyright owner, and the judge sat with an
attitude of "then what?", but the people on the road were at all have no idea. "Copyright does
not protect the concept, but it protects the author's skills and work in the production of the
work. If a person only uses the problematic concept within its scope, he shall not be liable for
copyright infringement. Work and express in own way Concept Two authors can make two
different works from an apical database source. Each person classifies information in his own
way and in his own language. The database and the language used should not exist from the
existence of copyrighted works.” Before closing, I need to clarify that although there are a
few cases in this document,

there are not many pirated books in India. In order to save a lot of commercial benefits,
publishers and distributors try to enforce copyright in the simplest way. However, piracy
hurts them a lot, because pirated books always have a small number, a large profit, and a
large demand. The book industry's profits from these best-selling books are 64 of the Indian
Copyright Act 1957 empty, and it lacks the funds needed for the growth and investment of
major literary works with low sales potential, especially for upcoming authors. Therefore,
stricter measures are needed to carb piracy. Another area of copyright infringement that needs
to be strengthened is the copyright protection of licensees. Model contracts are also needed to
protect the rights of authors in fast-changing environments such as electronic publishing and
the Internet.

5. CASE LAWS:

21
One of the related cases that dealt with the issue of copyrights in games was Mattel v.
Jayanth Agarwalla 20where the Delhi High Court refused to grant copyright protection to the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claimed copyright infringement against the Defendant over its game
called ‘Scrabble’ and alleged that the Defendant had reproduced the game in another name
using the same arrangement, colour of tiles, and design. The Court explained that the
requirement of ‘originality’ was missing and stated that merely arranging the tiles in a
particular way or colour of the tiles would not entitle them to copyright protection. The Court
also cited the case of Eastern Book Co. where it was stated that there needs to be some
judgment and skill and work should not be part of a mere mechanical exercise.

In the case of UTV Software Communication Ltd. Vs 1337X.To and Ors 21., the Delhi
High Court held that the infringer of copyright in the digital world is no different than the
infringer in the physical world and there is no explanation as to why crime in the physical
world is not a crime in the digital world especially when the Copyright Act does not make
any such distinction. 

The Delhi High Court in a recent case of Disney Enterprises Inc. and Ors. Vs Kim
cartoon. to & Ors22., made a decision in order to ensure that the original content of the
plaintiffs was protected and therefore restrained the Defendants from hosting, streaming,
reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or communicating to the public,
or facilitating the same on their websites through the internet in any manner whatsoever, any
cinematograph work, content, program or show in which the Plaintiffs owned copyrights. In
another case decided by the Delhi High court in which the defendants were publishing
content on their website which was produced by the plaintiff without their permission or
license, the court ruled in the favour of the plaintiff by awarding them damages and issuing a
permanent injunction against defendants.

The Napster Case in which the plaintiff was sued by the defendants for P2P file sharing, is
one of the most cited lawsuits worldwide for digital copyright infringements. In this case,
Napster provided software that allows the user to share media files (MP3 files) stored on his
computer with other Napster users. Since the Napster Inc Case filed, music companies have
sought USD 1,000,000 for each copyright protected song downloaded via Napster. The

20
2008 (153) DLT 548
21
2019 SCC Online Del 8002
22
 27 July 2020 in the High Court of Delhi.

22
Parties reached an agreement in which Napster agreed to give the settling parties a third of
full parties and Napster Inc was shut down in 2000.

In Eastern Book Company Limited v. D. B Modak, the appellants were in the business of
printing Supreme Court of India judgments through their publication ‘Supreme Court Cases.’
They would copyedit these decisions to make them more user-friendly by adding cross-
references, inputs, paragraph number, formatting and headnotes. The appellants contended
that because the creation of the headnotes required significant skill, labour, time, and
expense, the work is an original literary work and that the appellants alone had exclusive
rights to make hard copies or electronic copies of the publication under section-14 of the
Copyright act, 1957.

6. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS:

Multimedia is not so much a single product or technology, as the area of intersection between
the computer and communications industries. The legal structure that regulates computer
software is primarily copyright - both its statutory framework and the licensing industry that
has developed as a result of divisible rights. As this area of intersection grows, copyright will
have a more and more profound reach into many industries. In the United States, copyright
protection is strong for underlying properties such as sound recordings, images, and their
synchronization. The protection of software programs, however, is weak, because the courts
have enlarged the merger doctrine in the interests of innovation. As a result, copyright law
dictates that owners of intellectual properties claim their monopoly rents by exploiting
underlying material, rather than the programs that deliver it. High transaction costs, which
result directly from the divisibility of rights, have slowed the growth of the multimedia
industry and will continue to do so in the future.

Copyright will continue to shape the kind of data that is available and the means of delivering
it to the consumer. Left alone, copyright is likely to stifle the growth of multimedia. If the
United States is to take a leading role in multimedia, it must pursue policies that recognize
and temper the limiting impact of copyright law on multimedia development. That policy
could take the form of regulation, government funding, or criminal sanctions. The
government must first, however, recognize the crucial role copyright law plays in the
development of this new industry.

The multimedia market is a lucrative one, and every nation that wants a slice of this pie is
eager to create the right environment for the development of multimedia and other digital

23
works, however, would not be sufficient. The success of the Information Superhighway
depends on efforts made world-wide because the very nature of the Information
Superhighway is that it is borderless. Therefore, solutions to the legal uncertainties and
problems created by this new technology, such as:

(a) The role of moral rights in a digital world.

(b) The legal status of multimedia titles under copyright law.

(c) The need for a new networking right.

(d) An alternative protection for multimedia titles under a new sui generis right; and (e) The
need for a "one-stop shop"; must be resolved at an international level.

According to the above analysis, while not all multimedia works will display the
characteristics necessary to qualify as a cinematograph film, those that do will receive
protection for their underlying sequence of images, by virtue of the 'fat protection' afforded
by South African copyright law. whether a multimedia work as a cinematograph film can be
categorized as a dramatic work is fortunately avoided. This protection extends not only to the
literal reproduction of the sequence of images but also to its substantial reproduction

Copyright law is a particularly slippery subject and hard cases are always in danger of
making bad law. Although multimedia products may be new, there is nothing new about
judges having to apply existing principles to new cases. Over and above the basic principles
extracted from a critical analysis of the United States case law on videogames are helpful in
an inquiry into substantial similarity in the context of multimedia work.

Copyright law has become more regulatory, and this trend is here to stay. It is therefore
important for us to expressly recognize this fact and begin to think more carefully about its
implications.

SUGGESTION:

1. Though computer protection is available for software programmes, there are still various
instances of anti-circumvention. These instances of anticircumvention are proof to show that
the current law is insufficient to protect computer programs. Hence, in order to effectively
protect computer programmes, existing law has to be strengthened and the new law has to
bring in where there is a lacuna.

24
2. Strong enforcement of the current law is required to tackle infringement issues. The
numerous cases of infringement show that the current law is not acting as a deterrent to
prevent further infringement. Hence, the need of the hour is the strong enforcement of
provisions relating to infringement.

3. Watermark helps to strengthen the copyright protection available for the particular work.
In the existing modes of protection, watermarks help best to protect copyright.

4 Technologies to authenticate the integrity and source of digital content are also important
components of technological protection systems. As it has become easier and easier to tamper
with digital works without detection. techniques to ensure the integrity of digital content have
become more important.

5. One common cryptographic solution to the problem is the use of digital signatures, a
technique that authenticates both the contents of a message and the person who signed it.
Digital signatures may be transmitted along with the work as "metadata" or embedded
directly into the work as watermarks.

6. A trusted computer system combines hardware and software (meeting certain security
specifications approved by the content provider) to create a secure crusted platform for the
exchange of digital content and information. The server relies on "trusted" elements of the
recipient's device to identify the recipient, transmit only accurate information about the
recipient, and limit the recipient's ability to manipulate any content it receives from the server
in ways that exceed its authorization.

7. Rights models and rights expression languages are two mechanisms that can be used to
facilitate transactions involving copyrighted works in the digital environment. In broad
outline, a rights model specifies the types of rights, types of users, the extent of rights, and
associated costs. The rights model may specify such right types as print, view, or play.

The current level of protection given under copyright law is not sufficient to safeguard the
copyrightable work in digital space. These suggestions can be considered to protect
Multimedia work under copyright law.

25
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

 Dr. Elizabeth Verkey, “Intellectual Property Law and Practice”, Eastern Book
Company, 2013.
 Dr. V.K. Ahuja., “Law of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: National and
International Perspectives” LexisNexis, 2015.
 N.S. Gopalakrishnan & T.G. Agitha, “Principles of Intellectual Property” Eastern
Book Company, 2014.
 Julian Rodrigue Pardo., “Copyright and Multimedia” Kluwer law International 2013
 Inri A. Stamatoudi “Copyright and Multimedia Products” a comparative analysis
Cambridge Press 2002

ARTICLES AND JOURNALS:

 Tanya Aplin, Copyright - Protection of Multimedia, 22 Alternative L.J. 118

(1997)
 Vanessa Van Coppenhagen, Multimedia Works as Cinematograph Films. 120 S.
African L.J. 388 (2003)
 Wee Loon Ng-Loy, Multimedia and Copyright, 8 SACLJ 80 (1996) chuyler M.
Moore. Worldwide Copyright Protection, 17Whittier L. Rev. 301 (1995)
 R. Ross Viguet. National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Computer Associates
International. Inc.: A Hole in Software Copyright Protection You Can Drive a
Rental Car through, 49 Ark. L. Rev. 93 (1996)
 Carolina Sacz, Enforcing Copyrights in the Age of Multimedia, 21 Rutgers
Computer & Tech. L.J. 351 1995)
 Tara Kalagher Giunta; Lily H. Shang, Ownership of Information in a Global
Economy, 27 Geo. Wash. J. Int'l L. & Econ. 327 (1993)
 Joseph P. Liu, Regulatory Copyright, 83 N.C. L. Rev. 87 (2004)
 Laura N. Gasaway, Fair Use for Faculty-Created Multimedia, 6 Info. & Comm.
Tech. L. 153 (1997)
 Heather J Meeker, Multimedia and Copyright, Rutgers Computer & Tech (1994)

26
 John M. Conley Kelly Remelmans, Intellectual Property Implications of
Multimedia Products A Case Study, 6 Info & Comm Tech 1.3 (1997)
 Michael Madow Private Ownership of Public Image Popular Culture and
Publicity Rights, 81 Cal. 1. Rev 12 (1993)
 Dwayne K Goetzel. Recent Developments in Copyright Law, 7 Tex. Intell. Prop.
L.J. 445 (1999)
 Peter D. Wienand. Museums as International Copyright Owner Multimedia
Problems, 21 Int'l Legal Prac. 78 (1996)

BARE ACTS AND TEXT:

 TRIPS Agreement
 WIPO Copyright Treaty
 Berne Convention
 Universal Copyright Convention
 Copyright Act 1957.

WEBSITES REFERRED

 www.heinonline.com
 www.jstor.com
 www.manupatrafast.com
 www.who.org.
 www.ipindia.nic.in
 www.wipo.com
 www.researchgate.net

27