This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Recently, Bollywood Director Karan Johar [1] filed a case against the makers of “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar” for using his name in the title of their movie without permission, this lawsuit has sparked again the debate relating to personalityrights in India. Topps Chewing Gum Inc. [2] Rajagopal v.
Both suits were filed before the 2012 amendment to the Copyright Act. Further, given that the 2012 amendment does not have a retrospective effect, the Court held that the amendment has no effect on the legal position. Recognition of non-human inventors, AI and its implications for India.
PPL, claiming ownership over public performance rights via assignments from music labels, alleged infringement after its representatives discovered unlicensed use of its repertoire. The defendant began using ‘Zoly’ in 2012, which the plaintiff argued could mislead consumers due to phonetic similarity.
Recent court decisions have clarified the scope of copyright in film screenplays, personalityrights, and underlying works concerning content creation and licensing in broadcasting. 485 (2012) [2] [link] [3] [link] [4] Broadcasting Rights and Fundamental Rights, IJCRT, Vol 12, Issue 3 (2024) [5] MANU/DE/1061/2011 [6] RDB and Co.
[Delhi High Court] On May 23, the Delhi High Court passed an interesting jud gement on the issue of ownership of the copyright in a film screenplay and held that the copyright in the screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’, lay with Satyajit Ray and on his demise, with his son Sandip Ray and the Society for Preservation of Satyajit Ray Archives (SPSRA).
The Court further held that the 2012 amendment has radically changed legal framework pertaining to rights of authors and has granted right to claim royalties for every occasions where their work is communicated to the public. The Peppy Stores & Ors.
T Series And Another vs M/S Dreamline Reality Movies on 22 February [Punjab and Haryana High Court] The case concerned the adaptation of late Jaswinder Kaurs biography into a cinematographic film and deals with interplay of copyright with personalityrights. The Judgement was passed by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content