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
In a new low for Indian media, Aaj Tak (owned by the media conglomerate Living Media) has allegedly taken to using copyright claims to prevent criticism of its reportage by media watchdog Newslaundry.
Next Radio set aside the Madras High Court’s judgment that had modified the application of Rule 29(4) of Copyright Rules, 2013 applicable to the statutory licensing regime under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, finding that it rewrote the words of the statute [September 29, 2021]. Supreme Court premises.
Judge Denny Chin initially found Google liable for failing to secure the consent of copyright owners before scanning their books. There is no general right of attribution under United States copyright law , which only recognizes a right of attribution for artists. But he eventually reversed his own position.
(Readers who are already familiar with the facts of the case and the advantages of registration may skip to “Fraud on the Copyright Office” below.). Unicolors’s business model is to create artwork, copyright it, print the artwork on fabric, and market the designed fabrics to garment manufacturers.” 3d 1194 , 1196 (9th Cir.
Several petitions in the Madras High Court challenged the validity of rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013. In October, Newslaundry revealed that its YouTube operation had been suspended pending an enquiry into 53 separate copyrightnotices received from Aaj Tak. Saregama India Limited v.
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