A short note on the “Concept of Copyright in India”
The concept of copyright has evolved, with the first principles being established in the 15th century and the first valid copyright law in India being passed by the British government in 1847. The Indian Copyright Act of 1914 was the first law to criminalize copyright infringement, recognizing that it is not just a financial loss but also a harm that warrants criminal punishment. The Copyright Act of 1957, which is still in effect today, replaced the Act of 1914 and has undergone several amendments to keep up with technological advancements. Penalties for copyright infringement are outlined in the Copyright Act of 1957 and include fines, prison sentences, seizure, and injunctions. The TRIPS agreement, an international law, does not mandate that all forms of copyright infringement be made illegal but does require criminal sanctions for “wilful copyright piracy” on a “commercial scale.” Complexities in copyright infringement cases can include issues of originality and determining if the use of copyrighted work is permissible under the exceptions and restrictions outlined in the Copyright Act.
The definitions and penalties for copyright infringement have become more specific and harsher since the Act of 1914. The Copyright Act of 1957 outlines the criminal penalties for copyright infringement in detail in Part XIII, Sections 63-70. These penalties include fines, prison sentences, seizure, and injunctions and are also defined in the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 and the IT Act 2000. The Act also contains provisions for seizure and injunctions, as well as the roles of various bodies in handling such cases.
Copyright and TRIPS
TRIPS, or the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, does not make all forms of copyright infringement illegal under international law. According to Article 61 of the agreement, criminal sanctions must be used at least for wilful copyright piracy on a commercial scale. The distinction between copyright infringement and copyright piracy is acknowledged, even though the term “copyright piracy” is not defined in TRIPS. As per the panel of the World Trade Organization in China — Enforcement of intellectual property rights issue, the term “copyright infringement on a commercial scale” was rejected; therefore, copyright piracy includes the unauthorized bulk duplication of copyrighted works, but not all infringement is considered piracy. For example, a disagreement between two publishing companies over comparable content in their textbooks would be regarded as copyright infringement, not piracy.
Fair Dealing and Copyright
TRIPS creates an essential distinction between copyright infringement and copyright piracy, as most instances of copyright infringement that do not constitute piracy involve complex legal matters. The law in this area is often uncertain, making it challenging to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in some instances. Even when the question of originality is not in dispute, it can still be unclear whether the use of a copyrighted work complies with the limitations and exceptions outlined in Section 52 of the Copyright Act.
The legal concept of “fair dealing” is a complex issue that is addressed in one section of Section 52 of the Copyright Act. Additionally, specific provisions in the Copyright Act can limit the protection of copyrighted works in certain situations, such as when a work qualifies for protection under the Designs Act of 2000 and has been copied more than a certain number of times. This can make it difficult for courts to determine whether copyright infringement has occurred, as they must use the standard of substantial similarity on a case-by-case basis. These complex legal issues have challenged even experienced attorneys, judges, and scholars and must be considered in any police investigation into copyright infringement. Given the current levels of training and resources, there is a lack of confidence in the ability of typical police sub-inspectors to efficiently investigate copyright infringement, particularly when it comes to such complex legal issues.
Leading Judgement; Girish Gandhi, Etc. v. Union Of India And Anr.
This case arose from a civil writ petition and is considered one of India’s most significant criminal statutes or case laws on the criminalization of copyright infringement. Girish Gandhi argued that despite obtaining the necessary documentation and valid copyrights for each movie in his video cassette business, he feared the invocation of Article 64(1) against him without a requirement. He claimed that because Article 64(1) grants the police broad powers, he is constantly worried about harassment by the police and unnecessary litigation, even if no action has been taken against him. As a result, he requested that the article’s enforcement be deemed extra vires. The court cited Pooranmal v. Director of Inspection of Income-tax, M/s. Devi Das Gopal Krishnan v. State of Punjab and The Collector of Customs v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty argue that the section was neither ultra vires nor arbitrary because, despite errors by the executive branch, the section’s provisions provided sufficient guidelines. The petition was denied because the complainant had committed no overt conduct and Section 64(2) of the Act provided instructions for “satisfaction means” from unlawful and arbitrary seizure. This case was significant as the court explicitly outlined the rules outlined in the Act and demonstrated how the Act is not arbitrary, despite what the police officers may think.
Summary
The criminalization of copyright infringement in India has evolved gradually through ongoing court cases, writ petitions, and revisions. While India’s copyright laws still have room for improvement, it is encouraging to see progress being made. The cases mentioned above are important not because they are frequently cited but because of the improvements they have made to the law. Changes in the law are not always noticeable or drastic. Even if a change in the law only reinforces a fundamental principle, it is still significant. Therefore, understanding and working towards developing Copyright Law, which is at the heart of intellectual property, is essential.
Disclaimer: The information presented on this site does not constitute legal or professional advice. It should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for legal advice from an attorney licensed in your state. The materials provided herein are solely for information purposes. No attorney-client relationship is formed when you access or use the site or the materials.
Tagged how to register a trademark?
Trademark Infringement
trademark infringement in india
trademark registration
Tagged how to register a trademark? Trademark Infringementtrademark registration trademark registration in jaipur trademark registration online
Tagged Color Trademarks are protected under Indian trademark law Copyright Protection in Indiatrademark infringement in india trademark registration trademark registration in jaipur trademark registration office
