Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

+91-80-26860424 / 34

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Media and Entertainment Law

BananaIP Counsels > Media and Entertainment Law (Page 22)

Royalties for Singers – Delhi High Court passes a favorable order

This image depicts a Court Gavel. This image is relevant as the article deals with the decision delivered by Delhi High Court regarding Royalties to singers. Click on this Image for more Information.

For all of us waiting to hear of development in the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, yes, we have some news for you. It is not for Lyricists, or for Music Composers, but for Singers this time! The Indian Singers Rights Association (ISRA) has obtained a favourable order against one of the Delhi based clubs, Night Fever Club & Lounge, that has been playing songs and not paying Singers their due. The ISRA filed a suit against this lounge before the Delhi High Court on December 18, 2014 and have been successful in procuring a favourable order. The copy of the order states that the...

Continue reading

Emancipation of Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson

The image is from the BBC television show depicting Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. The post is about the expiry of copyright over Sherlock Holmes which is now in Public Domain. Click on the image to read post.

One might ask, how do 127-year-old immortal characters of Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson achieve emancipation? The answer is simple: Sherlock’s free for all now, as a direct result of Leslie Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate Ltd[i]. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, US, vide Order dated June 16, 2014, clarified that the characters of the Sherlockean World, creations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, are in the public domain now, as their copyright expired as early as 1997. With the exception of 10 Sherlock stories written between 1923 and 1927, the copyright has expired on all other 46 stories and...

Continue reading

Digital Rights Management

Laws alone cannot eliminate copyright infringements. For the Copyright Law to take its course, there have to be effective detection of infringements and identification of infringers. Furthermore, as with any property rights, owners of copyrighted content have to take certain measures to protect their copyrights before expecting law enforcement to aid them. DRMs and ETMs are such measures a copyright owner is expected to take in order to protect his copyrights in the digital world. The term Digital Rights Management (DRM) broadly refers to a set of policies, techniques and tools that guide proper use of digital content. Simply put, a DRM system manages the appropriate use of content.

The major functionalities of this system are numerous. They include facilitating packaging of raw content into an appropriate form for easy distribution and tracking, protecting content for tamper-proof transmission, protecting content from unauthorized use and enabling specifications of suitable rights, which define the modes of content consumption. DRM systems also facilitate the delivery of content offline on CDs and DVDs; deliver content on-demand over peer-to-peer networks, enterprise networks, or the Internet; and provide ways of determining the authenticity of content and of rendering devices. Some of the popular controlled access techniques in use are encryption, electronic signature, digital watermarking etc.

Reverse Engineering is Legitimated by Reason: Sega v. Accolade

This image depicts two person trying to put the puzzle together. This image is relevant as it was decided in the case of Sega vs Accolade that Reverse Engineering is limited by Reason. Click on the image for more information

In one of our recent posts on reverse engineering, we discussed fair use for intermediate copying. Today, we will look into another landmark case that legitimizes copying based on a justifiable reason! In Sega v. Accolade, Accolade used a two-step process to create video games compatible with the Sega Genesis game console.

The first step was to reverse engineer the system and create a development manual. Accolade purchased a Genesis video game console and three game cartridges. Then the system was wired up so that the data moving between the cartridge and the console during game play could be examined. The engineers retrieved the code from the cartridges, disassembled it and studied it.

Is it Legal to Reverse Engineer the Engineered?

This image depicts the word Engineer written in the reverse way. This image is relevant as the issue here is whether is it legal to reverse engineer the engineered. Click on the image for more information

Shoppers would agree with me when I say that while purchasing something, I need to feel a connect with it. Once I have found that connection, a feeling of possession sets in and I know that the article, which until recently was only lying in a shop somewhere, is now mine. This feeling of possession of an inanimate article may lead us to believe that anything can be done to it, which would legally be termed as personal property rights. These include the right to take the product apart, measure it, subject it to testing and so on. A question now arises – Can we Reverse Engineer and use something that has been engineered by someone else?

The controversy between Atari and Nintendo lays down most of the pre-Digital Millennium Copyright Act framework for the legal analysis of Reverse Engineering. In the late 1980s, the 8-bit Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) was a major player in the video games market. The security mechanism on the NES, called 10-NES, prevented games from running on the system unless they contained a special chip and software. This security mechanism was used by Nintendo to push game developers into licensing contracts.

A Peek into the Central Board for Film Certification

The image depicts a sign "Restricted -18 years and above"

What is the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)?

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is a statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, regulating public exhibition of films under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Films can be publicly exhibited in India only after they have been certified by the CBFC.

What is its constitution?

The Board consists of non-official members and a Chairman (all of whom are appointed by the Central Government) and functions with its headquarters at Mumbai. Leela Samson is the present Chairman of the CFBC. It has nine Regional Offices, one each at Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Thiruvananthapuram, Hyderabad, New Delhi, Cuttack and Guwahati. The Regional Offices are assisted in the examination of films by Advisory Panels. The members of the panels are nominated by the Central Government by drawing in people from different walks of life for a period of 2 years.

Mind your L’s and M’s: Licensing & Merchandising – Part 1

This Image depicts the images of various Merchandized Products. This Image is relevant as the article deals with the Licensing and Merchandizing in Entertainment and Sports Sector. Click on this Image for more Information.

Merchandising is an extension of a brand into new categories. Any merchandise is created by securing license of different Intellectual Properties such as themes, images, songs or dialogues of a film, characters etc. It is in the past decade that Movie Merchandise and Character Merchandise has gained popularity in India.

According to the industry reports, global licensing & merchandising is a huge business with its top 125 licensors accounting for sales amounting to more than US$ 184 billion. Disney is the largest global player and has generated sales of US$ 28.6 billion in 2010. The Major Baseball League was the biggest sports league in the sport-licensed merchandise segment with sales of around US$ 5 billion in 2010. Popular film franchises such as Star Wars, Harry Potter and Cars have generated licensed merchandise sales worth more than US$ 10 billion since their respective launches.

Ideas, Concepts, Scripts & Stories – Protecting Ideas in the Entertainment Industry Part III

This Image depicts a seedling is being protected by two hands on it This Image is relevant as the article deals with the Copyrights and protection of ideas. Click on this Image for more Information.

In continuation to our previous discussion on how to protect ideas in the entertainment industry, the upcoming posts in the series will discuss landmark cases and analyse how Courts consider Breach of Confidentiality claims. Previous posts in the series may be accessed here and here.

The first of these cases is Zee Telefilms Limited and Another vs. Sundial Communications Private Limited and Others:

This suit was brought by the Plaintiffs alleging Breach of Confidence in the original concept developed by the Plaintiffs and the misuse of confidential information. The Plaintiff’s was a company engaged in the business of television programming, video programming, multimedia programming, feature films, television serial production etc. They were primarily involved in coming up with various creative concepts for television programmes, which were registered with the Film Writers’ Association. Going by this trend, the Plaintiffs worked on various concepts and came up with a concept titled ‘Kanhaiyya’.

Statutory Licenses for Broadcasting – Part V: Notes on Copyright Amendment, 2012

The image has a sheet of paper with text stating "Copyright License Agreement". The post contains notes relevant to Copyright Amendment Act 2012. Click on image to view post.

The 2012 Copyright Amendment codified Statutory Licenses for radio broadcasting and has added television broadcasting to be within the scope of the license. Section 31D deals with statutory licenses for broadcasting. It reads as follows:

“31D. Statutory licence for broadcasting of literary and musical works and sound recording.

(1) Any broadcasting organisation desirous of communicating to the public by way of a broadcast or by way of performance of a literary or musical work and sound recording which has already been published may do so subject to the provisions of this section.

(2) The broadcasting organisation shall give prior notice, in such manner as may be prescribed, of its intention to broadcast the work stating the duration and territorial coverage of the broadcast, and shall pay to the owner of rights in each work royalties in the manner and at the rate fixed by the Copyright Board.

Version Recordings & Cover Versions – Part IV: Notes on Copyright Amendment, 2012

The image has a sheet of paper with text stating "Copyright License Agreement". The post contains notes relevant to Copyright Amendment Act 2012. Click on image to view post.

The Copyright Amendment of 2012 moved the provisions with respect to cover versions of sound recordings out of fair dealing provisions under Section 52, into a specific statutory license provision. Making version recordings, re-recording of prior sound recordings, was earlier permitted under the Copyright Law, but codifying it as a statutory license provision formalizes the said activity in many ways. Furthermore, Section 31C, which deals with statutory licenses for cover versions clearly spells out specific conditions and limitations for making version recordings.

The Section reads as follows:

“31C. Statutory licence for cover versions.

(1) Any person desirous of making a cover version, being a sound recording in respect of any literary, dramatic or musical work, where sound recordings of that work have been made by or with the licence or consent of the owner of the right in the work, may do so subject to the provisions of this section:

Provided that such sound recordings shall be in the same medium as the last recording, unless the medium of the last recording is no longer in current commercial use.

css.php
Speak with an IP Expert Today
close slider