The issue of making computer programs developed by educational institutions openly accessible for research and academic purposes is a nuanced one and it involves a delicate balance between protecting intellectual property and fostering the progress of technology. While these programs are indeed creations of intellectual labor and deserve protection under copyright laws, there are compelling arguments in favor of making them freely accessible. This author believes that doing so aligns with the principles of knowledge dissemination, fosters innovation, promotes inclusivity in education, and stimulates economic growth as well as global competitiveness.

The essence of academia lies in the dissemination of knowledge and the collective advancement of human understanding. By restricting access to educational programs through stringent copyright protection, we risk impeding the progress of research. Research is inherently a collaborative endeavor, and the ability to share and build upon each other’s work is fundamental to scientific progress. Stringent copyright protection creates barriers to this collaboration, while open access removes these barriers, allowing researchers from around the world to work together more effectively. This collaboration can lead to significant breakthrough inventions at an accelerated pace that might not be possible in a restrictive environment. Countries that embrace open access policies for educational resources are likely to see a boost in their competitive edge in the digital age, as they foster environments conducive to cutting-edge research and development.

Providing open access to computer programs is particularly beneficial for financially disadvantaged researchers. High costs of proprietary software and resources can be prohibitive, limiting access to foundational tools necessary for conducting research. By making these programs freely available, educational institutions can nurture a diverse pool of talent, enabling researchers from all backgrounds to contribute to technological and scientific advancements. This inclusivity is crucial for driving innovation and ensuring that a wide range of perspectives are represented in research. Educational institutions are often funded by public resources, implying a degree of public investment in the development of these programs. As such, there’s a moral imperative to ensure that the fruits of this investment contribute to the greater societal good.

Granting free access to computer programs can maximize their utility, enabling researchers, students, and educators to leverage them for innovative projects. Therefore, educational institutions should provide open access to their computer programs owing to its numerous benefits such as promotion of knowledge dissemination, inclusivity in education, scientific progress, economic growth, and global competitiveness. By embracing open access, educational institutions can uphold their ethical responsibilities and contribute to the collective advancement of human understanding.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

As discussions on copyright ownership of creations through generative AI are still nascent, the potential effect of granting copyright to works generated through AI technology is an issue that requires close attention. While there exist varied views of who can enjoy copyright over generative AI works, the author opines that granting copyright ownership to users will serve as an incentive that encourages investment in the development of AI technology.

The bounds of creativity and originality are re-defined with leaps of development made in generative AI models. The apprehension surrounding incentivizing products of generative AI technology is that granting ownership over products of generative AI may hinder collective enjoyment and cultural development of society. But history has only shown that encouraging technology benefits society at large. Culture has transformed and evolved owing to the Internet providing avenues for new forms of expression and works utilizing generative AI is only a natural extension of the same.

The foreground of the debate is in understanding the function performed by AI technology in creating ‘original’ works. As it stands, a generative AI-platform is a framework designed to assist its users in actualizing creative works in a smart manner. In this framework, the creative thought or a ‘prompt’ originates from the user of AI platforms. It is argued that providing copyright ownership to users would indeed align with the purpose of copyright protection, i.e., to encourage innovation by allowing users to monetize their works and enjoy the economic benefits arising out of it. Furthermore, business models such as paid AI-platforms and services indicate the recognition of mutual economic benefits to users and AI-platforms. This works in common benefit for stakeholders and attracts more users to AI-platforms, thereby benefiting the developers of such platforms.

As laws adapt and untangle technological complexities that require attention, granting copyright protection to users seems to come as a natural solution. AI-generated works are only capable of training data – it is the user who hones the technology to create value for society, such AI-platforms would have no further role to play. Providing copyright ownership assures users the freedom to exploit their content and work within the contours of copyright law. This clarity eliminates potential hesitation among investors, ensuring a conducive environment for investment in AI technology. For that reason, it can be contemplated that copyright ownership of AI generated content to the user would catalyze AI platforms to invest and generate revenue.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) published the draft India Data Accessibility and Use Policy 2022 (“Policy”) on February 21, 2022. To meet its objective of better service delivery for which non-personal data is valuable, the Policy proposes how non-personal data and information (“NPD”) consolidated by the Government of India (“GOI”) should be managed.

The Policy outlines the objective and underlying principles; and defines key terms to enhance access, quality, and use of NPD. The Policy is made applicable to NPD consolidated by the GOI through creation, generation, collection, and/or archival, directly or indirectly through authorized agents including ministries, departments, organizations, agencies, and/or autonomous bodies (“body/bodies”). The State Governments may adopt such provisions and protocols as applicable.

The Policy proposes the establishment of India Data Office (“Office”) to consolidate and streamline the process of data access and sharing between governments and stakeholders. The Policy proposes the establishment of Data Management Units (“Units”) for each body, headed by a Chief Data Officer (“Officer”) with the aid of the Office, and together, ensure this Policy’s implementation. The Policy also proposes the creation of India Data Council (“Council”) comprising of the Office and Units, to define and finalize relevant frameworks and coordinate deliberations between ministries, departments and state governments. The Council will function on a rotational tenure of 2 years.

The Policy provides that the Office will work closely with bodies and states to accelerate access to data held by them and coordinate with stakeholders to provide data for such parties’ use, per Office’s notified protocols. The Policy lays the responsibility of identifying and classifying datasets and maintaining integrated data portals through APIs upon the government’s respective body, with technical and implementation assistance provided by Office. Once approved, datasets will be federated into a single government searchable database, for inter-governmental sharing.

The Policy proposes that each body shall adopt and publish relevant standards for data and metadata and data retention policy. In respect of cross-domain standards, the Office shall finalize the standards applicable to the concerned government bodies.

The Policy provides that a Data Sharing toolkit and Reference Anonymization tools will be made available to bodies to assess and optimally manage risk in any transaction of data sharing and release. The bodies will conduct themselves in compliance with the legal policies, legislations, rules, guidelines, etc, time being in force, and recognized international guidelines. The Policy lays the responsibility of monitoring the policy’s implementation and enforcement on the Office; and also provides for the publication of an implementation manual by MeitY.

The Policy can be accessed here.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The criminalization of copyright infringement, in particular its classification as a cognizable and non-bailable offence, has been a widely debated issue over the past few years. Different High Courts have rendered varying statutory interpretations and verdicts that have been at loggerheads with one another. While the most recent stance of the Supreme Court has been that of deeming the same as cognizable and non-bailable, the author opines that this is too harsh a penalty to be imposed and can have a stifling effect on the growth of new creations.

For a law that has one of its fundamental objectives to be that of promoting and fostering creativity, the criminalization of such acts can have a clampdown on the creative process. An environment saturated with the constant fear of incarceration along with the absence of a right of bail will have the effect of instilling fear in the minds of the creator. This translates into an inability for the creator to express themself freely and can inevitably lead to self-censorship, thereby thwarting creativity.

Classification of copyright infringement as cognizable and non-bailable additionally has the potential of being misused by the government and interested private players as a means of censorship. Commonly used critique pieces such as jokes, videos, and parodies are often used to criticize the happenings and affairs of a state. However, parties against whom the criticism may be directed could passively have the power to shut down contrary opinions simply by engaging in frivolous, excessive, and unreasonable infringement claims. This results in a chilling effect on free speech which thereby affects creativity.

Further, copyright can be weaponized to vindicate non-copyright interests, i.e., interests which fall foul of the intended purpose of copyright. These interests include retaliation for some perceived wrongdoing or protection of reputation. Since there is no right to bail, it is a potential weapon of harassment in the hands of the police and shall exacerbate the cause of vulnerable groups the most. Such stringent classification, when assessed in a country such as India, where people are barely aware of the intellectual property rights vested in the works can lead to selective targeting of vulnerable groups and harassing them into silence.

Accordingly, criminalization gives rise to free speech concerns and consequently impacts creativity. This, when coupled with the threat of weaponization of copyright as a tool to silence criticism, or as means to harass the vulnerable, make a compelling argument against classifying copyright infringement as cognizable and non-bailable. The author thereby hopes for a shift towards the same.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

Guidelines for Accessibility and Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities (Guidelines) is a set of guidelines issued by the Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks (O/o CGPDTM) vide Order dated March 04, 2022. These guidelines are an attempt to align interactions of IP Offices under O/o CGPDTM (IP Offices) with the Rights to Persons with Disability Act (RPwD Act) to provide two-fold facilitation – (1) accessibility and (2) reasonable accommodation to Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) who interact and practice with the IP Offices.

By virtue of the guidelines, O/o CGPDTM takes the initiative to make ICT-related trademarks, documents, and other online facilities and systems more accessible. A nodal officer (disability) [nodal officer] has been appointed by O/o CGPDTM on a temporary basis to address the needs of agents, attorneys, and other PwDs.

According to the Guidelines, in order to facilitate accessibility, installation of screen readers; audio speakers; and braille printers at appropriate locations have been ordered. The same would also be provided on the receipt of an email by a PwD to the nodal officer seeking assistance with specific mention of the Controller/Registrar/Examiner before whom a representation has to be made. Similar facilities are also made accessible to Patent and Trademark Agents with disabilities.

As for reasonable accommodation, the Guidelines prescribe that the same would be provided by O/o CGPDTM upon a request of a PwD to the nodal officer, made in advance. The nodal officer shall also consult with the concerned Controller/Registrar/Examiner if what is requested is a reasonable accommodation. Also, while determining the most appropriate accommodation, the nodal officer shall discuss specific requirements with the requestee and also with the concerned Controller/Registrar/Examiner.

The Guidelines provide that the nodal officer may also provide sufficient time to PwDs for converting documents into accessible formats, appropriate adjournments and time extensions not exceeding fourteen days are also provided with prior consultation with the Controller/Registrar/Examiner. In case of denial of any request for reasonable accommodations, the nodal officer shall provide reasons for such denial.

The Guidelines also include a grievance redressal mechanism by way of which the nodal officer is duty-bound to address all grievances pertaining to accessibility and reasonable accommodation. Non resolvent of the same within a period of ten working days entitles the seeker to send a grievance to the O/o CGPDTM. The requisite contact details of the nodal officer (disability) and O/o CGPDTM are provided in the Guidelines. 

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP