Authorship & Ownership of Copyright in India

Authorship and ownership of copyright - Intellect Vidhya Solutions

The authorship and ownership of copyright in India is distinct. The concept of ‘ownership’ and ‘authorship’ in India becomes vital when the question of propriety over the copyright arises. This article aims to provide a thorough explanation of both concepts.

Who is the Author under Indian Copyright Law?

The Indian copyright law distinguishes between authorship and ownership of copyright in India. An author is someone who actually writes, composes or creates the work utilizing his or her creativity, imagination and intellectual abilities. The author of a particular copyrighted work can also be owner of the work if such work is not created under the employment or direction from some other person.

The ownership of a copyrighted work can vary depending on the conditions surrounding its creation but an author will always remain the creator of the work because the authorship has been rewarded in order to appreciate the efforts that an author put into the creation of the work. The copyright Act, 1957 establishes a general rule that the author is the first owner of a copyright and the exceptions to this rule has been laid down under section 17 of the act, which also explains the difference between the authorship and the ownership of a copyright.

The rights of a copyright owner in India are wide, including the right to reproduce the work, the right to convey the work to the public, the right to adapt, translate, and many more. Whereas the author of the work does not have such a broad range of rights, the author’s rights are limited to the right of receiving remuneration for the work created and the moral rights of being known as the creator of the work (right to paternity) and protecting the work from exploitation (right to integrity).

The creator of a literary or dramatic work is referred to as the author in general, but under the copyright act, any individual who causes a work to be done is the author of that particular work. Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act of 1957 establishes a list of authors for various types of work protected by copyright. The section reads as follows:

  • The author of a literary or dramatic work shall be the author.
  • In musical works, the composer is the author.
  • In artistic works, the artist is the author.
  • The author of a photograph is the person who takes the photograph.
  • The producer of a cinematographic film is the author.
  • The author of a sound recording shall be the producer of such sound recording.

Who is the Owner under Indian Copyright Law?

As previously stated, the author of the work may also be the owner of the work; but, if the work is created in exchange for any consideration or in the course of employment, the person under whose direction the work is created becomes the owner of the work.

For instance, if a person X hires another person Y, who is an application developer, to develop an application for his business under a service agreement, then X will be the owner of such an application and Y, who developed the application under X’s employment in exchange for monetary compensation, will have authorship of the application. On the contrary, if Y had created the application for himself or his business, he would have been both the author and the owner of the application.

Exceptions to the General Rule – ‘Author is the first Owner’

The exceptions to the general rule that the author is the first owner of copyright is laid forth in Section 17 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, which states that a person who pays or provides resources for a work to be created is the first owner of such work. Let us take a closer look at these exceptions.

Section 17Subject matter
Clause (a)Literary, dramatic & artistic work
Clause (b)Photograph, painting, engraving, cinematographic film
Clause (c)Work made under course of employment
Clause (cc)Lectures delivered in public in behalf of another
Clause (d)Work assigned by government
Clause (dd)Work made on behalf of a public undertaking
Clause (dd)Work of certain international organization

• Section 17(a) – Literary, Dramatic & Artistic Work

This clause states that if an author creates a literary, dramatic, or artistic work while working for the owner of a newspaper, magazine, book, or other publication under a contract for publishing such work, the owner of such newspaper or magazine becomes the first owner of the copyrighted work, unless an agreement to the contrary is in place.

Illustration – A journalist or writer working in a newspaper house is never the owner of the work he produces; only authorship is his.

• Section 17(b) – Photograph, painting, engraving, cinematographic film

This paragraph states that anytime a photographer is paid to take photographs, a painter is hired to paint, and a cinematographer is hired to shoot a film, the person who hired or caused such work to be done becomes the first owner of the copyright.

Illustration – A painter hired by a school to paint the school’s boundary walls with storytelling paintings presenting social and moral values will not be the first owner of the paintings he made, but the school that hired the painter will be.

• Section 17(c) – Work made under course of employment

This section states that if a work is made during the course of employment or a service contract, the employer becomes the first owner of such copyrighted work.

In the well-known case of V.T. Thomas and Others vs Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd, the employee, an artist, created a cartoon character prior to his employment with the publishing house Manorama and continued to use it after his job terminated. The publishing house claimed that they were the first owners of the copyright because the cartoon was utilized while the artist was working for them. Although the cartoon was utilized by Manorama, it was not created by the artist during his employment with them; hence he was the sole owner of the artwork.

In another case of Neetu Singh vs Rajiv Saumitra, the court agreed that the defendant had served as a director of a company for two years, but the plaintiffs were unable to prove that the literary work authored by the defendant was part of his employment obligations.

• Section 17(cc) – Lectures delivered in public in behalf of another

This clause states that if a person provides a speech in public on behalf of another person, the person on whose behalf the speech was delivered is the original copyright owner, not the person giving the speech.

• Section 17(d) – Work assigned by government

If a copyrightable work is created as a result of a government tender, the government will be the first owner of the copyright deriving from and accruing to such works.

For example, the Indian government owns the copyright on the “statue of unity,” not the engineers or architects who designed or built it.

• Section 17 (dd) – Work made on behalf of a public undertaking

In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, if a work is created or first published by or under the control or direction of a public undertaking, that public undertaking will be the original owner of Copyright.

• Section 17(dd) – Work of certain international organization

If an international organization commissions someone to create a copyrightable work on its behalf, that organization will be the original owner of the work.

Conclusion

As mentioned, it is understood that the copyright law draws a line of distinction between ownership and authorship in India. Although the author will always be credited as the creator of the work that he or she has produced in the past, ownership of the work may not necessarily remain with the original creator. The general rule that the author is the first owner has exceptions outlined in section 17, but if there is a contrasting agreement between the parties in the course of employment, then the ownership can be altered based on this understanding.

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp

Related Posts

The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry - Intellect Vidhya

The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has made remarkable progress in various fields, including music production. Voice cloning in music has been a subject of intense debate, raising questions about copyright infringement, moral rights, and the preservation of artistic integrity. The recent criticism voiced by legendary Indian playback singer Kumar Sanu against AI voice duplication brings attention to the mounting concerns within the music industry. Power and Potential of AI Voice Cloning AI voice cloning technology has made significant progress in recreating the voices of singers with outstanding precision. This ability has resulted in the development of new songs that utilise the voices of artists who have passed away, as demonstrated in the recent example of “Pehle Hi Main.” This song was created using an AI-generated voice that mimics the late Mohammed Rafi, who sadly passed away in 1980. Although this technology presents fascinating opportunities for music production and preservation, it also brings up important ethical and legal concerns. Dealing with Copyright Infringement Copyright infringement is a significant legal concern when it comes to AI voice cloning. A singer’s voice is regarded as their valuable asset, safeguarded by copyright laws in numerous jurisdictions. When AI is employed to imitate a singer’s voice without authorization, it may potentially infringe upon copyright protections. This encompasses violations of reproduction rights, distribution rights, and the unauthorised creation of derivative works. Moral Rights and Personality Rights In addition to copyright concerns, AI voice cloning also brings up ethical and legal questions surrounding moral rights and personality rights. It is important for singers to safeguard their work from any alterations or manipulations that may negatively impact their reputation. Additionally, there is a potential for confusion and misrepresentation when AI-generated voices are not explicitly identified. Furthermore, in numerous legal systems, people possess the authority to regulate the commercial exploitation of their identity, appearance, or voice. Voice cloning might be perceived as a violation of these rights. Cloning the Voices of Deceased Artists Using AI to replicate the voices of deceased artists, such as Mohammed Rafi, brings about a whole new set of challenges. Although copyright protection usually lasts for many years after an artist’s passing, the ethical considerations surrounding the use of a deceased artist’s voice without their permission are quite substantial. There are concerns regarding the preservation of the legacy and artistic intentions of deceased musicians. Industry Response Kumar Sanu’s decision to pursue legal protection against AI voice cloning demonstrates a rising recognition of these concerns within the music industry. Other artists and industry professionals are also advocating for the establishment of regulatory frameworks to oversee the utilisation of AI in music production. There are several potential solutions being discussed to address the challenges posed by AI in music. These include establishing licencing protocols for the use of AI-cloned voices, requiring clear disclosure when AI voice cloning is used in a production, and developing specific laws to tackle these unique challenges. The Path Forward As AI technology advances, it is essential for the legal system to stay up to date. Collaboration between the music industry, legislators, and AI developers is crucial in establishing a framework that balances the protection of artists’ rights with the promotion of innovation. This could potentially include the need to revise copyright laws to specifically tackle AI-generated content, setting industry norms for the ethical application of AI in music production, and devising methods for artists to maintain control over and profit from the utilisation of their AI-replicated voices. Conclusion The emergence of AI voice cloning technology brings forth a range of possibilities and complexities for the music industry. Although it presents exciting opportunities for creativity, it also raises serious concerns regarding artists’ rights and the authenticity of their work. As evidenced by Kumar Sanu’s case, it is clear that there is a pressing requirement for the establishment of legal and ethical frameworks to regulate the utilisation of this technology. As we move forward with the more enhanced versions of AI, it’s crucial to find a harmony between technological advancement and safeguarding artists’ rights. It is crucial to establish thoughtful regulation and foster industry cooperation to ensure that AI positively impacts the creative ecosystem of the music industry.

Read More »
Understanding Personality Rights in MEME ERA - Intellect Vidhya

Understanding Personality Rights in MEME ERA

What do personality rights entail? Before we delve into the recent legal disputes, let’s first grasp the concept of personality rights. In basic terms, personality rights (also referred to as publicity rights) refer to the rights that an individual has to manage the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, or other distinctive aspects of their identity. These rights hold great significance for celebrities, as their public image often holds substantial commercial worth. The Growing Importance of Personality Rights in India: Striking a Balance Between Safeguarding Celebrities and Preserving Freedom of Expression India has witnessed a notable increase in legal cases concerning the rights of individuals, especially those in the public eye such as celebrities and media personalities. These cases have ignited discussions about finding a balance between an individual’s personal rights and the essential right to freedom of expression. Let’s delve into three recent cases that have significantly influenced India’s perspective on personality rights. The Jackie Shroff Saga In May 2024, Bollywood actor Jackie Shroff took legal action to safeguard his identity, voice, images, and his well-known catchphrase “Bhidu” (a popular slang term for friend in Mumbai) against any unauthorised usage. The decision made by the Delhi High Court was intriguing as it took into account not only Shroff’s rights, but also other relevant factors. The court declined to remove a YouTuber’s parody video that cleverly utilised Shroff’s persona. The judge acknowledged the artistic nature of these videos and their potential as a source of income for young creators. This decision demonstrated a growing recognition among courts of the significance of online content creation and meme culture, particularly among younger individuals. Anil Kapoor’s Case: In a previous incident, Anil Kapoor, another renowned actor, found himself in a legal battle for comparable motives. In this instance, the court examined personality rights from a unique perspective – as a means of safeguarding a celebrity’s livelihood. The court emphasised the potential impact on a celebrity’s income from endorsements and other business deals when their image or voice is used without permission. They likened it to piracy, implying that exploiting a celebrity’s persona could be akin to robbing them of their earnings. India TV and Aap Ki Adalat: In May 2024, a highly debated incident unfolded, centering around Rajat Sharma, a prominent TV journalist, and his show “Aap Ki Adalat” (Your Court). A satirist, Ravindra Kumar Choudhary, has been using the names “Jhandiya TV” (a play on words meaning “Depressing TV”) and “Baap ki Adalat” (Father’s Court) in his content. The court ruled that Choudhary must cease using these names, as they were found to violate India TV’s trademarks and Sharma’s rights to his own identity. This decision caused concern among individuals who value free speech, as they feared it could potentially hinder the creation of parodies or the ability to comment on public figures. Why is this relevant to you? You may be curious about the significance of these celebrity court cases for everyday individuals. Allow me to explain: 1. Impact on Content Creation: These cases have an influence on the type of content that creators are able to produce. If courts become more stringent, it could potentially pose challenges for creating parodies or offering commentary on public figures. 2. Online Content: Numerous young individuals generate income by producing online content. These decisions have a significant impact on the actions and content creators can take in their videos or posts. 3. Public Debate: In a democracy, it’s crucial to have the freedom to engage in discussions and even poke fun at public figures. These cases have a significant impact on the extent to which we are able to exercise our freedom. What comes after this? As India grapples with these intricate matters, here are a few suggestions that could contribute to establishing a more equitable system: 1. Improved Guidelines: It is important for courts to establish more precise rules when it comes to striking a balance between protecting personality rights and upholding free speech, particularly in the context of parodies and satire. 2. Caution in Issuing Court Orders: It is important for courts to exercise caution when issuing orders that restrict content, ensuring that both sides of the story are heard. 3. Recognising Varied Uses: It’s important to distinguish between utilising someone’s image for financial gain and using it for the purpose of commentary or critique. It is important for courts to acknowledge and understand this distinction. 4. Public Interest: Courts must consider the potential value of allowing commentary on public

Read More »
Understanding Derivative Works Legal Definitions and Implications in India

Understanding Derivative Works: Legal Definitions and Implications in India

In the realm of intellectual property rights, the concept of derivative works holds significant importance, particularly in the context of copyright law. A derivative work is a creation that is based on or derived from an original copyrighted work, thereby giving rise to a new work with its own set of rights and obligations. In India, the legal framework governing derivative works is outlined in the Copyright Act, 1957, and its subsequent amendments. Definition of Derivative Works As per the Indian Copyright Act, a derivative work is defined as a work that is created by adapting or translating an original literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work. This includes, but is not limited to, adaptations in the form of cinematographic films, sound recordings, translations, abridgments, condensations, and arrangements. Types of Derivative Works Derivative works can take various forms, depending on the nature of the original work and the creative process involved. Some common types of derivative works include: 1. Literary Derivative Works:    – Translations of novels, poems, or plays into different languages    – Abridgments or condensations of longer literary works    – Sequels, prequels, or spin-offs based on original stories or characters 2. Dramatic Derivative Works:    – Film adaptations of plays or novels    – Stage musicals based on literary works or films 3. Musical Derivative Works:    – Cover versions or remixes of existing songs    – Arrangements or transcriptions of musical compositions for different instruments or ensembles 4. Artistic Derivative Works:    – Sculptures or paintings based on existing works of art    – Photographic reproductions or digital manipulations of artworks 5. Software Derivative Works:    – Modifications or enhancements to existing computer programs    – New software applications built upon existing code libraries or frameworks Legal Implications The creation of a derivative work requires permission from the copyright owner of the original work, unless it falls under the exceptions provided by the fair use or fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. Case Study The adaptation of Chetan Bhagat’s novel “Five Point Someone” into the hugely popular film “3 Idiots” generated significant controversy. While the movie was a commercial and critical success, it faced backlash for deviating substantially from the original novel’s narrative and themes. Critics argued that by taking a broader, more mainstream approach, the film oversimplified the novel’s critique of the Indian education system and the struggles of IIT students. They accused the filmmakers of exploiting Bhagat’s work for commercial gain while failing to accurately represent its essence. There were also concerns about the portrayal of certain characters, like the entirely new character of Rancho, and the exaggerated depiction of IIT life and the education system. Despite these criticisms, “3 Idiots” sparked conversations about educational reforms and the pursuit of passion over societal expectations. However, the controversy highlighted the challenges of adapting works that tackle sensitive social issues, and the need for faithful and respectful representations of the source material. Implications and Considerations The concept of derivative works has far-reaching implications in various creative industries, including literature, music, film, art, and software development. It is crucial for creators and authors to understand the legal framework surrounding derivative works to avoid potential infringement issues and to protect their intellectual property rights effectively. When creating a derivative work, it is advisable to obtain proper licenses or permissions from the original copyright owners to ensure compliance with the law. Additionally, consulting with legal professionals or intellectual property experts can provide valuable guidance on navigating the complexities of derivative works and ensuring that the creative process remains within the bounds of the law. It is also important to note that the boundaries between original works and derivative works can sometimes be blurred, particularly in cases where the derivative work incorporates substantial new creative elements or transforms the original work in a significant way. In such cases, the derivative work may be considered a separate, original creation, subject to its own copyright protection. Conclusion In conclusion, derivative works play a vital role in the creative ecosystem, fostering adaptation, innovation, and cultural exchange. However, it is essential to strike a balance between encouraging creativity and protecting the rights of original authors. The Indian Copyright Act provides a comprehensive legal framework for regulating derivative works, ensuring that the rights of both the original creators and the authors of derivative works are safeguarded. By understanding the legal nuances and adhering to the principles of fair use and proper attribution, creators can navigate the realm of derivative works while respecting intellectual property rights.

Read More »
Filing a Trademark for a Restaurant in India – A step by step Guide

Filing a Trademark for a Restaurant in India – A step by step Guide

Filing a trademark is crucial for protecting your restaurant’s brand identity, name, and logo from potential infringement or misuse by others. In India, trademarks are governed by the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the process of registration is overseen by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (CGPDTM). Step 1: Conduct a Trademark Search Before filing for a trademark, it is essential to conduct a comprehensive search to ensure that your desired mark is not already registered or closely resembling an existing trademark. This search can be done through the CGPDTM’s online database or with the assistance of a trademark attorney or agent. A thorough search helps avoid potential conflicts and legal complications down the line. Step 2: Determine the Appropriate Classes Trademarks are classified into different classes based on the goods or services they represent. Restaurants primarily fall under Class 43, which includes “services for providing food and drink; temporary accommodation.” However, depending on the offerings, restaurants may also consider filing in other related classes. Additionally Relevant Classes for Restaurants: Filing in multiple classes is recommended if your restaurant offers a diverse range of products or services beyond just food and beverages. Step 3: Prepare the Application Once you have determined that your desired mark is available, you can proceed with the application process. The trademark application can be filed online through the ipindia.gov.in website, which serves as the official portal for filing all kinds of intellectual property applications in India. Alternatively, you can opt for offline filing by sending a physical copy of the application. The prescribed form for filing a trademark application is called TM-A. The application should include: Step 4: Submit the Required Documents Along with the application form, you must submit the following documents: Step 5: Pay the Applicable Fees The fees for filing a trademark application in India vary based on the number of classes and the mode of filing (online or physical). For a single class in the online filing mode, the fee is currently INR 4,500 for individuals and startups/ MSMEs  and INR 9,000 for others. Additional fees apply for each additional class. For example, if filing in two classes, the fee would be INR 9,000 for individuals/startups and INR 18,000 for others. Step 6: Examination and Publication After submission, the application will undergo a formal and substantive examination by the appropriate trademark registry. The formal examination checks if the application meets all the necessary requirements, while the substantive examination assesses if the mark is distinctive, not deceptive, and not conflicting with existing trademarks. If the mark meets all the requirements, it will be published in the Trademarks Journal for opposition. This is an opportunity for any interested parties to oppose the registration of the mark within four months from the date of publication. If no opposition is filed or if the opposition is unsuccessful, the mark will proceed to registration. Step 7: Registration and Renewal If the application is successful, the trademark will be registered, and a registration certificate will be issued by the Trademark Registry. Trademarks in India are valid for 10 years from the date of filing and can be renewed indefinitely for successive 10-year periods by paying the prescribed renewal fees.It is essential to keep track of the renewal deadlines and file for renewal well in advance to avoid the lapse of your trademark registration. Additional Considerations: By following these steps and complying with the Trademarks Act, 1999, you can successfully register a trademark for your restaurant in India, safeguarding your brand and establishing a strong market presence.

Read More »