Tag: copyrightinfringement

-Report by Prerna Gaur

The honorable High Court of Delhi held in the case of STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus AAPKEAAJANESE.NET & ORS “rogue websites” that rogue websites were guilty of copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Act and were not entitled to exemptions under 52 (1)(c) of the Act or Section 79 of Information Technology Act, 2000.

FACTS

There is a contention on the behalf of the plaintiff that the defendants are stealing their original content and making it available on their websites which are prohibited under the Copyright Act of 1976 as well as the IT Act. Therefore, the plaintiff is praying for a permanent injunction as well as claiming damages of Rs 2,00,01,000/-. Plaintiff no 1. is a leading entertainment and media Company in India. It is the owner of various television channels and with due permission from Ministry and Broadcasting has exclusive rights to broadcast 64 channels in 8 languages. Plaintiff no.2 is the wholly owned subsidiary of Plaintiff no.1 and is the owner of the digital platform HOTSTAR.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTION

These websites are infringing the copyrights of Star India Limited. Plaintiff had asked the honorable court to put down the content from the website and the plaintiff also asked for compensation for the same. It was alleged by the plaintiff that there was illegal and unauthorized distribution, broadcasting, rebroadcasting, transmission and streaming of the plaintiff’s original content by the rogue websites. There were no traceable details of either the registrant or the user of the website. Although legal notices were sent to the defendants, however, there was no response by the defendants. The defendants have not filed any written statements.

Court’s Judgements

The court held that the concerned websites were guilty of copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Act and were not entitled to exemptions under 52 (1)(c) of the Act or Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. As far as “rogue websites” are concerned, the Court identified the following illustrative factors to be considered in determining whether a particular website falls within that class. It was observed

“b. The details of the registrants of each of the websites are masked and no personal or traceable details are available either of the registrant or the user.
c. Despite receipt of legal notices, the Defendants nos. 1 to 67 have not complied with the requests to take down the infringing content.
d. The Defendants nos. 1 to 67 contain directories or indexes to facilitate infringement of copyright.
e. The copyrighted content is available illegally on the websites of the Defendant nos. 1 to 67 and the same is evidenced by the screenshots placed at pages 297 to 1364 of Volume II-VII of the documents filed by the plaintiffs along with the Plaint.”

In light of the above observations, the court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed.

Case Number

Civil Appeal no. 2030/1968

Equivalent Citation

1978 AIR 1613, 1979 SCR (1) 218

Petitioner

R. G. Anand

Respondent

Delux Films & ors.

Bench

Justice Syed Murtaza Fazalali, Justice Jaswant Singh, Justice R. S. Pathak

Decided on

August 18, 1978

Relevant Act/Section

Section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Brief Facts and Procedural History

The appellant-plaintiff is a theater play producer, playwright, and dramatist. A number of plays were written and staged by the appellant. On the other hand, the play ‘Hum Hindustani’ is what the appeal is about. He wrote this play in 1953, and it was performed for the first time in 1954. Since then, the piece has gained popularity. The second defendant, Mr. Mohan Sehgal, wrote the appellant a letter in November 1954 asking for a copy of the play, so that he could decide whether or not to make a movie about it. The appellant and defendant No. 2 afterward got together in Delhi. The second defendant announced the making of the motion picture ‘New Delhi’ in May 1955. Delhi saw the film’s release in September 1956. The movie was seen by the appellant.

In his lawsuit, the appellant claimed that the play “Hum Hindustani” served as the only inspiration for the movie “New Delhi,” that he had told defendant No. 2 about the play and had dishonestly mimicked it in his movie, violating the plaintiff’s copyright as a result. As a result, the appellant filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages, an accounting of the defendant’s profits, and a permanent order barring the defendants from showing the movie. The defendants denied liability in the lawsuit. The defendants argued that defendant No. 2, a film director, producer, and director of Delux Films, met the appellant at the invitation of a mutual friend, Mr. Gargi, and saw the play’s script, concluding that the play was unsuitable to produce a feature-length, mass-market motion picture. The defendants argued that there could not be a copyright on the topic of provincialism that anyone might use or adopt in their own way. The defendants additionally argued that both in terms of content, spirit, and climax, the movie differed significantly from the play. The simple fact that there are some similarities between the movie and the play can be explained by the fact that both the play and the film share a common source: provincialism.

The appellant was found to be the owner of the copyright in “Hum Hindustani” by the trial court, which also determined that there had been no infringement of the appellant’s copyright. After that, the appellant appealed to the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench upheld the decision rejecting the appellant’s lawsuit.

Issues before the Court

1. Whether the film ‘New Delhi’ is an infringement of the copyright of the play name ‘Hum Hindustani’?
2. Whether Respondents-Defendants have infringed the copyright of the Appellants-Plaintiffs by making the movie named ‘New Delhi’?

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court of India’s decision in this case which dealt with copyright under intellectual property rights was significant. A copyright violation in the area of cinematography is the subject of the lawsuit. When an original creative work is used or duplicated without the creator’s consent, copyright is violated.

The plaintiff was unable to show that the defendant in any way imitated his play. A reasonable inference of colorable imitation can be made if there are significant and unavoidable similarities between the copied work and the original. The Court ruled that an infringement action may only be brought if an infringement may be identified by a regular person. Since no obvious comparison could be found in this instance, the film was not perceived as a copy of the original play. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal since there was no copyright infringement.

The learned counsel representing the appellant claimed that the Trial Court had applied the relevant legislation in an improper manner. The court also disregarded the legal arguments made regarding the copyright violation by courts in India, England, and the USA. The experienced attorney further claimed that the movie and the appellant’s play are inextricably linked. The setting was the same as the play’s, and the plot was essentially the same. The Punjabi and Madrasi backgrounds of the families involved were similar, and the play’s leading heroine was fond of singing and dancing. Finally, the knowledgeable attorney argued that the respondent attempted to imitate the stage performance, violating the appellant’s copyright, and produced the movie without obtaining the appellant’s permission.

On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent in court categorically refuted the appellant’s assertions. He claimed that the play and the movie were very different from one another. Both of them featured various occurrences, and their core differences were substantial. The experienced attorney added that the Trial Court’s assessment was accurate. Therefore, there was no question that the appellant’s copyright had been violated.

The court’s verdict, which was presided over by Justice Fazal Ali, found that despite the fact that both the play and the movie are founded on the idea of “Provincialism,” the two are very different. The movie also shows other facets of “Provincialism,” such as “Provincialism” when renting out outhouses, which are not included in the play’s portrayal of “Provincialism” during the marriage. The film also shows the negative aspects of dowries, something the play does not. Although there may be some similarities because the idea in both the play and the movie is the same, the Court rejected the Appellants’ claim because it is well-established law that an idea cannot be protected by copyright. The court cited N.T. Raghunathan Anr. v. All India Reporter Ltd., Bombay¹. The court determined that a regular person would not view the play and the movie as being identical. The assertion that the copyright has been breached by the appellants cannot be upheld because the play and movie are so different from one another.

Ratio decidendi

According to the Court, there is no copyright for an idea or a storyline; rather, the manner, arrangement, or expression of such an idea can be protected. Some similarities are unavoidable if the source of the works is shared, but the court must determine whether or not those similarities are significant enough to amount to infringement. It is an infringement if a regular person describes the in question work as a copy or reproduction of the original work after viewing it. The concept need just be repeated, but it must be depicted in a unique way to qualify as fresh original work. If there are more differences than similarities, there was a bad purpose to duplicating.

Obiter Dicta

It becomes particularly challenging for the dramatist in circumstances when the plaintiff must demonstrate infringement of his copyright against a movie, according to Justice Fazal Ali. Because a movie is more able than a play to express broad concepts and ideas. However, it is considered infringement if, after watching both the play and the movie, it appears that the latter is a copy of the former. According to Justice Pathak, it is possible for someone who is using a copyrighted work to their advantage to cover broader topics and make minor adjustments here and there to the theme to demonstrate differences from the original work and elude detection of plagiarism. Additionally, Justice Pathak stated that he might have had a different opinion from the High Court if the facts of the current case had been reopened before this Court. However, as the District Judge and High Court, the Courts of Fact, have both dismissed the Appellant’s claim, this Court would not needlessly interfere with their choice.

The Supreme Court issued the following guidelines:

• No idea, subject, theme, story, or historical or fabled fact can be protected by copyright, and in such cases, copyright infringement is only allowed in the form, style, arrangement, and presentation of the idea used by the author of the copyrighted work.
• Whether the viewer, after reading or viewing both works, is certain and has the unmistakable impression that the later work appears to be a copy of the original.
• It must be established whether the similarities represent fundamental or important aspects of the expressive style of the copyrighted work. There is a need for substantial or significant copying.
• If the same idea is used but is expressed and portrayed differently, there is no copyright infringement.
• It is not regarded as a copyright violation when the published work contains significant variances or unintentional coincidences.
• Copyright infringement has been proven if the viewer comes to the conclusion following the incident that the movie is practically an exact clone of the original play.
• The burden of proof rests with the plaintiff when a film director violates a theatrical performance.

The Court decided in the Respondents’ favor on both issues and found no infringement as a result. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the relevant case is still used as a benchmark when copyright violations are involved. Even Section 13 of the Indian Copyright Act offers three categories under which copyright may exist, providing greater relief to the court system. It’s important to note that none of them refer to ‘ideas’ as a component of this specific intellectual property right.

References

1. AIR 1971 Bom 48, 1982 (2) PTC 342 (Bom).

This article is written by Sanskar Garg, a last year student of School of Law, Devi Ahilya University, Indore.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most rewarding aspects of media outlets is reflected in video games. Every year, consumers spend over $25 billion to enjoy the interactions that teams of writers, organizers, and programmers have. With so much in doubt, it makes sense for the companies that create these video games to want to provide the best legal protection for their products. Copyright laws give video game developers the judicious right to reproduce, market, and turn off products based on their game’s code, characters, images, and exchange. Understanding the material legal structure is necessary given the ongoing, dynamic growth of the video game industry and the growing revenue it generates, which is now equal to the size of the film industry and outpacing the music industry in terms of overall revenue.

This article focuses on examining the relevant national legislation in order to provide video game engineers with information on the main current legitimate openings for the security of their rights and interests during the creation of a video game and its subsequent use and distribution. The video game market is worth many billions of dollars. As of 2018, the global gaming market was worth $137.9 billion, with roughly half of all revenues coming from mobile devices. It’s also important to note that after India’s national lockdown began, the founder of Ludo King reported a jump in active users from 13 million to 50 million. But as video games grow in popularity, there is also an increase in issues with infringement in this industry, and there are many different aspects of copyright that need to be taken into account in this regard.

They consist of songs, scripts for movies, stories, videos, artwork, and characters. Video games are therefore not made as single, straightforward works but rather as a collection of various elements, each of which can be copyrighted provided it reaches a certain level of originality and inventiveness (e.g., the characters in a video game, its soundtrack, settings, audio-visual parts, etc.). A video game’s main features, such as its plot, characters, audio-visuals, graphics, and some of the code, may be protected under various categories of “works” as defined by section 14 of the Copyright Act of 1957. Since the numerous categories of works protected by copyright are outlined in Article 2 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, video games may also be covered by this provision.

BACKGROUND OF PUBG VS. FORTNITE CASE

The makers of Player Unknown’s Battlegrounds (“PUBG”), Bluehole, sued Epic Games, the developer of Fortnite, in South Korea at the start of 2018 for copyright infringement. Because some elements of the new Fortnite resembled those of PUBG, Bluehole claimed that Epic Games was responsible for copyright infringement. It was asserted that without contributing anything new to the genre, Fortnite simply duplicates the gameplay of PUBG. The genre in question is battle royale, a game mode based on a Japanese movie of the same name, in which a group of teenagers is coerced into a deathmatch by the government. Midway through the year, Bluehole abandoned its lawsuit against Epic Games. On the other hand, the dispute between PUBG and Fortnite brought up a crucial issue: can a genre be copyrighted?

COPYRIGHT CONTENTS IN A GAME

A video game is made up of a variety of elements that combine to create the experience we as players have. All of the elements are contained in the software coding that creates a game’s user interface. Although copyright is already granted for software coding, other works created for video games, such as character designs, storylines, and scripts, may also be protected by copyright. No theme or concept depicted in a game can be copyrighted, as this is the general rule of copyright, which states that only its expression in literary, artistic, or musical form can invoke copyright protection. However, contents that are part of the video game are copyrightable. This is crucial to comprehend because, while a soldier character from a game based on World War I could be copyrighted, neither another soldier character from a game nor a game based on World War II could be restricted.

CASE LAWS

The Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of RG Anand v. Deluxe Films¹ that the film could not be held to have violated the screenplay of the play. The justification offered was that although the concepts behind the script and the movie were the same, how they were expressed was very different. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as a copyright infraction. In the case of Mansoob Haider v. Yashraj Films², the Bombay High Court reiterated that ideas are not protected by copyright. The similarity of ideas does not indicate a copyright violation because after removing differences, the remaining idea is not protected by the law.

The landmark American case Baker v. Selden³ established the idea-expression divide. Selden asserted ownership of the copyright for the fundamental accounting method he created and used in the book. Selden wanted copyright for his ideas, but he never asked for it for the first sentence of the book. The Supreme Court ruled that copyright can only be granted to the expressions and not the underlying theory, and that it cannot be extended to the “ideas” and “art” used in the book.

GENERAL RULE OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION

It should be noted that gameplay refers to the combination of game mechanics, rules, objectives, impediments, rewards, and punishments used in a particular video game and made visible through the various media shows produced when the player interacts with the game. It becomes essential to find a reasonable balance between the right of initiation and the continued advancement of masterpieces by granting reasonable copyright protection against encroachments from gameplay. An idea, theme, or concept depicted in a game cannot be protected by copyright, but the contents that are included in the video game can.

The idea versus expression doctrine states that only the literary, artistic, or musical expression of an idea, theme, or concept may be protected by copyright. The genre of a video game is an idea, not an expression, and copyright only safeguards the original manifestation of an idea—not the idea itself. We would be restricted to a small number of first-person shooters, role-playing games, racing games, and so forth if genres could be copyrighted, which would be restrictive for both developers and players. By granting a monopoly to the copyright holder, asserting copyright over ideas will further disrupt the market’s flow because only a small number of people will have total control.

ANALYSIS OF PUBG v FORTNITE

Returning to the PUBG vs. Fortnite debate, the only criticism levelled at Fortnite was that it was created by Epic Games as a Battle Royale game. The concept of the Battle Royale genre is not new. In reality, it is based on the renowned Japanese movie “Battle Royale,” in which a despotic government imprisons a large number of high school students on an island, arms them, and orders them to kill one another until there is only one left. Even though PUBG’s developers may have released their battle royale video game before Epic, they cannot stop Epic or anyone else from developing their own interpretation of the idea, provided that there aren’t too many similarities to clone PUBG’s distinctive expression. The reason why Epic’s take on the genre differs so much from Bluehole’s is because of the company’s unique perspective on it.

The video games Fortnite and PUBG are very dissimilar. Both games have distinctive visual styles. Based on screenshots from PUBG, it might be challenging to tell it apart from other gritty, realistic shooting games because of its appearance. The colors in the game are typically earthy tones, the weapons look almost exactly like their real-life counterparts, and the clothing you can find by looting buildings is roughly what you’d expect to find in a hastily abandoned home. The realistic, battle-worn appearance is ideal because the game is meant to be intense. On the other hand, Fortnite has a very stylized appearance that embraces its computer-generated nature rather than trying to hide it.

In Epic Games in-house, you’ll find dozens of employees working on everything from the cross-platform functionality to the massive amount of artwork needed to make it all look as good as it does. The design is entirely cartoon-like, the colors are outrageously vivid, and the weaponry is absurdly overdone. While PUBG is an open battleground with 100 players hosted at once on a single server, with players collecting weapons, medical aid, driving cars, and in-game bombings with game restrictions, Fortnite includes a building mechanic with resource collection to build forts, bridges, and other structures to protect the player from bullets. These gameplay differences set apart both games and do not, therefore, violate the copyright of the PUBG developers.

CONCLUSION

Copyright infringement can occur if the overall idea of the game is expressed in too many similar ways, especially if there are other ways to express the same idea. Most creators are able to minimize their copying of a specific genre’s concepts and rules while also adding their own innovative expressive features. In other words, you could be copying the gameplay and idea, but you wouldn’t be liable for copyright infringement because it would be considered your expression of that genre, as you are replicating other games within the same genre but adding your twist on it, such as adding artistic graphic elements and creating unique characters that set the game apart.

CITATIONS

1. AIR 1978 SC 1613.

2. 2014 (59) PTC 292.

3. 101 U.S. 99 (1879).

This article is written by Sanskar Garg, a last year student of School of Law, Devi Ahilya University, Indore.

-Report by Avinash Pandey

Copyright infringement (also known as illegal downloading) is the use of certain information or creation, without the permission of the owner, where authorization of the owner of the information is considered necessary. In simple words, it is encroaching upon such unique privileges given to the copyright owner, including the right to reproduce, disseminate, showcase, or undertake the copyrighted material, or to prepare derivative works.

SONY PICTURES NETWORK INDIA Pvt. Ltd. Vs WWW.sportssala.tv and Ors

Sony Studios filed a federal lawsuit against a number of individuals in this matter, chiefly seeking a permanent injunction against reproducing, making accessible, publishing, streaming, etc, sports events of India’s games. Even during the course of litigation, Sony Studios sought an interlocutory order and sought comparable remedies. The Judge issued Sony Studios an order prohibiting webpages, encompassing redirection, clones, and alpha-numeric variants. A restraining order also was issued targeting rogue websites that replicate, transmit, give access, transmit to the community, or redistribute sports events.

The Tribunal also issued an order directing ISPs to prohibit the aforementioned and other pirate networks, as well as directing the Government of India to issue suitable orders to minimize violation of Sony Pictures’ copyrights during the events.

The preliminary injunction also applied to MSOs and broadband providers, and regional inspectors were established to oversee and enforce the Court’s instructions. The Judge’s rulings principally encompass Sony Pictures’ copyrights, and so by inference allow only reasonable usage of the material related to the cricket matches involving India and England/Sri Lanka.

KNIT PRO INTERNATIONAL Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

In this instance, the appellant submitted an application with the chief metropolitan magistrate for the lodging of charges against the defendant for violations of Sections 51, 63, and 64 of the Copyright Act, as well as Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the petition, instructions were given to the competent officer to record the FIR in accordance with the applicable legal regulations. Following that, the defendant filed a writ petition with the Delhi High Court, requesting that the court proceedings be quashed, primarily on the grounds that the infraction under Section 63 of the Copyright Act would not be cognizable or bailable crime. The High Court allowed the writ petition and ordered the costs to be recorded against the plaintiffs.

Afterward, the appellant decided to contend this in front of the apex court and stated that the High Court had committed a huge mistake by observing that the offence punishable under section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offense and it is not part of the first schedule of the Cr.P.C. The respondent however contended that the decision of the High Court was correct and the offence under section 63 of the Copyright Act is indeed considered a non-cognizable offence.

The main issue that was raised here was whether section 63 of the Copyright Act and the offence committed by violating it is a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence. At the same time reference was made to the High court’s decision on whether section 63 of the Copyright Act can be considered a part of the first schedule of the Cr.P.C. The apex court in its judgment had explained section 63 of the Copyright Act and it provides for the punishment that is awarded to any person who had violated the said section.

In its final judgment, the Supreme Court held that section 63 of the Copyright Act is indeed a cognizable and non-bailable offence and therefore the judgment and the order passed by the High Court are contrary to the views of the Supreme Court. The order was set aside and the Supreme Court ordered the criminal proceedings to start against the respondents in this case for the violation of section 63 and section 64 of the Copyright Act in accordance with the law by treating them as cognizable and non-bailable offences.