NAGOTI

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh versus Nagoti Venkataramana has observed and held as under:

• a copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed when any other person makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire any infringing copies of the work. Section 52-A deals with particulars tube included in sound recordings and video films.
• The permission of the owner for publication is mandatory when it sought to be brought home to the person violating the publication or performed in public. It excludes the application of infringement of copyright from the purview of Section 4 Chapter x deals with registration of copyright.

• Section 68-A provides for penalty for contravention of Section 52-A
• any person who publishes a sound recording or a video film in contravention of the provisions of Section 52-A, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
• infringement of a copyright or deemed infringement of copyright or publication of a work without the permission of the owner are offences under the Act
• in the interpretation of penal provisions, strict construction is required to be adopted and if any real doubt arises, necessarily the reasonable benefit of doubt would be extended to the accused.
• piracy which became a global problem due to rapid advances in technology.
• the object of the pirate is to make quick money and avoid payment of legitimate taxes and royalties.
• whether video film is cinematograph?
• video tapes come within the expression "cinematograph" in view of the extended definition in Section 2 [c] which includes apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures as copy of the video should be created in respect of a cinematograph under the Cinematograph Act which gives protection to the purchasers of the cinematograph if they are registered under Chapter X of the Act.
• Section 44 gives the right of registration and once the entries have been made by operation of Section 48 the entries in the register of copyrights shall be prima facie evidence of the copyright and the entries therein are conclusive without proof of the copyright and the entries therein are conclusive without proof of the original copyright which must be taken to have been created in respect of the video tape.
• If the particulars on video films etc. as mandated under Section 52-A do not find place, it would be infringement of copyright.....

PUBLIC EXHIBITION

Hon’ble High Court in the case of Balwinder Singh v. Delhi Administration has held that both video and television are cinematograph. Licenses for giving their public exhibition is necessary under the Cinematograph Act in spite of their having commercial licenses for them under the Telegraphs Act.

VIOLATION BY CABLE OPERATORS

Hon’ble High Court in the case filed by UTV issued summons indicating that it is open to the parties to access the facility of negotiating a settlement with the other side before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre in the court complex with liberty to the mediator to join any other person(s) considered necessary for effective mediation and dispute resolution without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the suit.

Hon’ble High Court observed that unlicensed broadcast of the reproduction rights vested in the plaintiff by telecasting the plaintiffs’ films 7 Khoon Maaf and the forthcoming film Thank You in the foregoing manner is illegal, unfair and deserves to be prohibited, therefore issued as under:-

(i)         that the defendants/their agents, representatives, franchisees, sub-operators, head ends and/or anyone claiming under them are hereby restrained from telecasting or in any other manner communicating to the viewing public/subscribers either by means of wireless diffusion or by wire a pirated version of the films 7 Khoon Maaf and Thank You and/or in any other manner infringing the copyright of the plaintiff therein.

(ii)        It is further directed that till the present order is vacated or modified, the direction shall operate against the defendants, their agents, representatives, franchises, sub-operators or any person claiming under them an injunction.

(iii)       Further injunction in terms of serial no. (i) above is passed against un-named and undisclosed persons who may be likewise committing breach of the rights of the plaintiff in a similar manner.

(iv)     The SHO/Superintendent of the concerned police station(s) are directed to render assistance to the plaintiff should any be required for purposes of enforcement of the present order as it is the obligation of the police authorities and the State to enforce judicial orders passed.

(v)        The plaintiff is permitted to publish the John Doe injunction order issued today in local newspapers in all states where it has expressed apprehensions of violation of its rights. Consequences in accordance with law would thereafter follow.

(vi)       The plaintiff shall comply with the provisions of the proviso to rule 3 of order 39 of the CPC within a period of ten days from today. Copy of this order be given dasti as well as dasti under the signatures of the court master of this court.