Neighbouring Rights- Neighbouring rights, also known as rights neighbouring to/related to copyright form

three categories of people who are not technically authors of the work so creates and are performing artists,
producers of phonograms, and those that are involved in television, radio and broadcasting.
Rights Of Performers Under Rome Convention:
Article 7 talks about the rights acquired by the performers under the Rome convention they are:
Right to prevent others from non-consensual broadcasting or communicating of the performance except
otherwise where, the performance is already a broadcasted performance or is made from fixation.
Right to prevent others from fixing a price for the performance without their consent or for performance
which is made for different purpose rather than the one for which the performer consented for and wherein
the original fixation is made inconsonance with A. 15 and the reproduction of the same differs from those
provisions mentioned in the same.
Right to prevent from commercial exploitation of their work when consent is not obtained from them.
WPPT (WIPO PERFORMANCE AND PHONOGRAMS TREATY, 1996)
Another convention which elucidates rights pertaining to the performers for their work purely fixed in the
phonograms is WPPT which was established 1996 in Geneva, and which more importantly extended the
rights which can include licensing. Right to reproduction (Article7), "Right of Distribution" (Article8),
"Right of rental (Article 9)" and "Right of availability of fixed performances (Article 10)".
Article 7- performers can avail this exclusive right wherein they get the power to authorize the reproduction
of their performances fixed in phonograms or any other medium.
Article 8- this article empowers the performers to distribute their work in public either originally or copies
thereof through sale or transfer of ownership.
Article 9- This right Empowers performers to rent his/her performance to public either original or copies
thereof in consonance with the national laws of the contracting parties
Article 10: By Accessing this Right, performers can disseminate their performance by wire or wireless
means in such a medium where public can get access to it at a time and place chosen and suitable for them.
[5] As Provisions of This convention were purely subjected to the performer's performance exclusively fixed
in phonograms and not in audio-visual performances this was the time Beijing treaty came into picture
Fortune Films International v. Dev Anand [AIR 1979 BOM 17 (DB)]
FACTS:
Fortune Film International, the appellants and the film producers, entered into a contract with the
respondent, famous cine artist Dev Anand, on August 1st, 1974 to engage him in their Hindi film “Darling
Darling” and pay him Rs 7 lakh as compensation. The agreement included a provision for relaxation in
support of the petitioners, granting them a limited right to display the film in any of the designated regions
after paying the applicable fee.
On May 11th , 1977, the motion film was censored. On and after September 2, 1977, the film was released
in three of the seven listed territories, Delhi, U. P. and East Punjab territories, which, according to the cine
artist, were released without his knowledge or agreement.
It was also released in Mysore and C.P.C.I. (Vidharbha, Southern and Eastern Chhattisgarh and Madhya
Pradesh) territories, but this was done with the cine artiste's knowledge and approval, and in compliance
with the parties' rights.
The cine artist sought an injunction to restrain the producers from releasing the film. According to Clause 6,
the other four listed territories are Bombay and overseas, including the territories not specified, on the
grounds that the stated condition gave him the rights to the picture and barred the producers from showing it
in any place until full payment is handed over to him.
The injunction was partially granted, preventing the producers from showing the picture in regions that were
not named, but the actor's argument that the agreement gave him rights to the whole film was denied. The
agreement was intended to provide him copyright to his work which was his performance in the film,
according to the court. The producers opted to take their case to the Division Bench against the single
judge's ruling.
ISSUE:
Whether the cine artiste was correct in asserting that the copyright of the film was in agreement to be vested
in him until the appellants paid the entire value of the annuity plans?
Does the cine artist have any copyright on his performance under dramatic work?
According to the court, an artist's performance in a cinematographic film cannot be compared to painting,
sculpture, drawing, engraving, or photograph, and is plainly not a creative production under Section 2(c) of
the Act.
The court also dismissed the argument that it was covered by Section 2(h) as a “dramatic work,”
holding that it was an inclusive term that specifically excludes a cinematographic film.
It was determined that the words “or otherwise” in the definition of theatrical work are solely there to
include recording devices such as tape recorders, dictaphones, and so on.
The Court also rejected the idea that a cinematographic film might have one owner of the copyright
in its whole and several owners of the copyright in different parts of the film.
The court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to an interim injunction in respect of any territory other
than the four mentioned areas. The court overturned the trial court's ruling and revoked the temporary
injunction obtained by the trial court.