The Metaverse brings with itself a myriad of opportunities for brands in terms of marketing and branding, customer engagement and diversification, market expansion, collaborations, and even new products – all of which translates into a digital economy. While the Metaverse brims with opportunities for brands to expand and grow, the move to the Metaverse will bring novel challenges not limited to the virtual world, but ones that would impact the real-life ability of a brand to obtain, manage and protect its Intellectual Property (IP). The author believes that the influx into the uncertainty of the Metaverse(s) will embolden brands to adopt more aggressive IP policies.

The Metaverse may seem like borderless virtual worlds between which a user can move through easily, however, each Metaverse is controlled by a single entity (Provider) that designs and controls its own virtual space. Therefore, brands looking to enter the Metaverse(s) need to be meticulous with their IP licensing arrangement with the Providers. Further, given the scale of content required to make a functional Metaverse, it is certain that a large part of it would be user generated. Brands would be required to take a befitting approach towards enforcement and management in instances when their IP interacts with such user generated content, particularly, content that is infringing upon their IP rights. The sheer volume of content that would be available on a Metaverse would make detecting infringement an arduous task for brands of all sizes.

Adapting laws to the current version of the Web took decades and is a work-in-progress; navigating and setting boundaries in the interoperable and territory agnostic Metaverse(s) will be far more challenging.  This brings challenges brands will face in enforcing IP rights through laws that are limited by territoriality. Unlike with the internet, brands’ reliance on intermediaries to assist with enforcement of their IP rights may not be straightforward. The interoperability of the Metaverse would open a pandora’s box of infringing content across various Metaverse(s) controlled by different Providers. Therefore, for brands to work together with these Providers would, as a first step, require them to establish an exhaustive and definitive IP licensing arrangement with each Provider, establish IP rights (such as trademark, design registrations etc) and an adaptive IP policy.

The uncertainty of the various aspects pointed out above would affect the ecosystem of Metaverse and the opportunities of IP creation and infringement. It is likely to leave brands navigating their IP asset protection, management and enforcement through evolving jurisprudence. Therefore, brands adopting more aggressive policies to grow and protect IP is all but inevitable. 

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

Copyright Blockchained: Exploring the Possibilities and Challenges of Blockchain Implementation in the Copyright Realm is a paper published in 2021 [Mayank Tyagi, ‘Copyright Blockchained: Exploring the Possibilities and Challenges of Blockchain Implementation in the Copyright Realm’. The NUALS Intellectual Property Law Review (2021)]. The paper examines the use of blockchain technology in the creation of a more effective and transparent copyright protection and enforcement system in India. The paper surveys the functions and features of blockchain to identify its potential and the implementational challenges it can face in the realm of copyright.

The paper suggests various ways in which blockchain can be used to strengthen the copyright regime in the digital environment, A decentralized blockchain database with timestamps and records of conception and ownership of digital content is virtually impossible to tamper with, which will bring about greater transparency towards copyright ownership. Copyright owners can keep a track of all digital copies of their work on the internet through blockchain’s hash feature, which assigns unique serial numbers to each copy. Furthermore, the use of self-executable smart contracts can help copyright holders gain more control over the licensing of their work and revenue by decreasing their dependency on intermediaries, thereby saving costs in the process.

The implementation of blockchain to the Indian copyright system is, however, subject to legal and technological challenges. The paper highlights that while blockchain stores information related to copyrighted work, the work itself is still stored offline, which can lead to a conflict regarding the true ownership of the work. A mechanism to verify that the offline information matches with the data present in the blockchain is necessary. The paper suggests the need for standardization of rules with respect to blockchain to ensure an effective application of the technology. It mirrors NITI AYOG’S recommendation to supplement smart contracts with ‘real world’, traditional contractual documents to ensure legality of the former. Lastly, the paper states that the costs associated with the use of blockchain technology could be better managed with the help of pilot projects by the government to assess the public response towards the technology in India.

The paper highlights that blockchain is a dynamic technology which has already shown promising results in the area of digital finance. The benefits can be extended to the Indian copyrights system, provided that the existing legal and technological issues are dealt with effectively.

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

Protection of traditional art forms under geographical indications law: a case study of Madhubani and Sujini art forms of Bihar, India is a paper published in 2021 [Akanksha Jumde, Nishant Kumar, Protection of traditional art forms under geographical indications law: a case study of Madhubani and Sujini art forms of Bihar, India, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (July 2021)]. The paper analyzes issues with the implementation of Geographical Indications (GI) law in India especially in light of the traditional handicraft sectors. Towards this, two ancient art forms from the state of Bihar were studied based on field visits and in-depth interviews of some relevant stakeholders.

The paper provides an overview of GI law in India such as the registration and enforcement process along with highlighting its importance and comparison with other forms of IP. Handicrafts as an industry has a huge significance in India in terms of employment generation as well as revenue from exports. GI law has emerged as the best form of protection to traditional knowledge. Consequently, the registration of Sujini and Madhubani GIs have not only uplifted the life of rural women of Bihar but also helped in the popularization of the art form globally.

The paper highlights how despite the rapid growth in GI registrations for handicrafts, there still exists a gap in the existing literature on GI law in this regard. There has been increasing instances of counterfeiting and misappropriation in the manufacturing and sale of products as the law is limited to penalizing only improper use of the GI label and not the manufacturing process as such. This is also a result of lack of post-registration quality control and monitoring provision. Further, applicants are subjected to arduous registration procedures and anomalous ‘authorized user’ requirement, thereby making the process further challenging. Moreover, with cases of artists migrating to larger markets, the localization requirement for use of GI label is put into question. Due to the lack of sufficient government support in promotion and marketing post-registration, it becomes challenging for artists to survive on the art form as a complete source of livelihood.

The paper emphasizes that these issues arise as GI law is extremely trader-centric and to address the same, promoting awareness through association about the social and cultural significance of the products is important. Besides, solutions for statutory and procedural issues can be found in laws of other countries, and with governmental support and certain practical steps by proprietors, GIs can be adequately protected and would yield better economic returns.

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 22^nd session of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property, 2018 [1] acknowledged the existence of the gender gap in IP and emphasized the need to create gender equality by empowering women to innovate and create IPs. It aimed to include a gender-specific perspective in IP policies. The author believes that a gender-specific perspective in IP policies is not necessary but agrees with the Committee’s recommendation on the need to empower women to innovate and occupy a bigger share of the workforce in the development of technologies and businesses. 

The lack of awareness of the economic and social benefits of owning IP among women, lack of financial resources to pursue education or set up businesses, insufficient support to working women, contribute to the sparse contribution of women in strengthening the IP ecosystem.

The author opines that the government can undertake effective schemes and initiatives to empower women in creating IP. The government actively advertising and promoting initiatives to increase the participation of women in the workforce and sectors of innovation will automatically raise awareness, empower women and reduce the gender gap.

Women from indigenous / tribal communities in some parts of the world have collaborated with their governments to meet the UN sustainable development goals and, in the process, have preserved traditional knowledge. In India, too, women from indigenous / tribal communities can also be encouraged to protect their traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, geographical indications and trade secrets. It would help them not only economically but also socially and strengthen the IP regime.

The author’s opinion on not having gender-specific IP laws but to simply empower women to innovate and participate in the workforce stems from the belief that implementation of laws is a problem area and not the laws themselves. Measures to empower women are the need of the hour. Some measures that can be undertaken are – promote women’s involvement in STEM fields by providing scholarships or crash courses; incorporating initiatives to the existing women empowerment schemes of education; awareness programs and mentorship can be provided by women inventors or other women in the IP field; concessions and benefits similar to those offered to MSMEs in terms of financial assistance and loan moratoriums can be further relaxed for women centric businesses.

It is the author’s opinion that the government can address barriers faced by women by actively providing solutions to implement the laws rather than merely implementing more laws. This will motivate more women to innovate and automatically address gender-gap issues.

[1] World Intellectual Property Organisation, “Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) 22^nd Session”, Pg. 6-7, available at https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/cdip_22/cdip_22_summary.pdf.

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 once defunct area of ​​music copyright law is seeing a surge of fees stemming from licensing arrangements for songs that are unaffordable by smaller businesses and up-and-coming artists. Latest music is more similar than different, and artists are using similar beats, samples and rhythms to meet the demand. When such basic samples are used to back copyright claims, individual artists are hesitant to experiment and innovate music. The author believes that such licensing arrangements with over-arching fees are detrimental to the growth of smaller/individual artists.

Nowadays, abstract qualities of rhythm, tempo, and the overall feel of a song are being used to chase down songs for simply ‘feeling’ like a previous song. In all genres, artists release new music with the same question in mind: Will this song throw me down the rabbit hole of exorbitant licensing arrangements?

Large companies with long catalogs of musical compositions are able to set disproportionate licensing fees and exhaust artists in the name of such abstract properties and sample packs. The most affected are independent creators, who are more often under-equipped to partner with these entertainment giants. For example, an upcoming musician who does a cover of a hit song will be slammed with high fees if he wants to share his cover publicly. Even coming up with their own compositions doesn’t help as sometimes big labels use very basic beats to justify their lawsuit against them and claim unreasonably excessive damages in a private settlement. Thus, smaller artists are prevented from innovating. Instead of promoting the creation of more music, copyright law in this context sometimes contribute to removing competition by giving larger profits to major records, who in turn use those advantages to out-compete smaller labels. This results in less incentive to make music as this becomes one of the factors which makes it difficult to market oneself and become profitable.

Simply put, artists who “win” the lottery by signing a license agreement with a major distributor are able to make huge gains over independent artists who do not have as much access to the public.

Artists are limited by what their record companies can afford while people other than the artists make financial decisions. Sometimes producers have to replace or discard their music because they can’t afford to clear the samples they want. Thus, the author is of the firm view that licensing agreements with major record companies can often leave vulnerable artists at a tightrope without the possibility of breaking into the market by paying such high licensing fees.

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