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

Culture plays an important role in the development of a country and a country as diverse as India is symbolized by the plurality of its culture. It has to be ensured that the cultural works are adequately protected and that there exist no overlapping boundaries between not for-profit, educational, and commercial exploitation and distribution of such work. The author believes that open licensing would adequately ensure the promotion of Intellectual Property (IP) in cultural heritage and enable the effective usage of the said cultural work in question and at the same time, ensure adequate protection to the creator of the said work.

Open Licensing empowers new creativity, increases educational opportunities, preserves space for non-commercial culture and promotes inclusion and access to cultural works. This, it does by ensuring that the creators are duly credited for their work; commissioning of the said work as well as ensuring that such works are protected from being destructed and by preventing the cultural expressions from being exhibited in ways that disparage the community.

Further, open licensing ensures that the right to livelihood of such creators is adequately protected, in the sense that they receive economic benefits for the work they produce. To this end, the Indian Government, under the aegis of Ministry of Culture has introduced various schemes, such as the “Scheme of Financial Assistance for Promotion of Art and Culture”, among others [1]. The schemes aim at supporting and strengthening the efforts of various stakeholders vis-à-vis, wider recognition and acceptance, dissemination, preservation and promotion of the rich, diverse and vast Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) of India, including its recognition by the UNESCO. In this regard, open licensing enhances financial rewards to the creators.

Moreover, these schemes aim at preserving, supporting and safeguarding the various expressions of ICH by providing training support to the students and artists in these areas, providing support to practitioners through workshops, performance documentation and database creation through various media. To this end, the schemes aim at addressing areas critical for the survival and propagation of various ICH forms.

In the absence of open licensing, it would be easier for large corporations to exploit the creator of such rights without adequately incentivizing them. The author, thus, believes that these incentives along with the current copyright regime facilitates the promotion of IP in cultural heritage. Open licensing treats cultural production as a public endeavour for the benefit of all and the same has to be positively encouraged.

[1] Ministry of Culture, Schemes, available at https://www.indiaculture.nic.in/schemes .

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 High Court of Delhi released a draft of the proposed “Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2021” on October 8, 2021, for stakeholder consultation. The members of the Bar have been requested to submit their comments/suggestions within two weeks through an email. The draft Rules lay down the practice and procedure to be followed for matters listed before the recently created Intellectual Property Division (“IPD”) of the Delhi High Court.

The IPD will adjudicate upon matters pertaining to all forms of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) including statutory claims as well as enforcement of common law remedies like passing off, unfair competition, disparagement, tortious activities, etc. The IPD will deal with all original, appellate and other proceedings related to IPR [including all proceedings which were hitherto maintainable before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“IPAB”)], except matters that are dealt with by a Division Bench. The rules also provide the categories, nomenclature and procedure for different proceedings that can be filed before the IPD.

As per the rules, in all matters filed before the IPD, an advance copy shall be served on the address of service and via email upon the Respondents and their counsels, at least forty eight hours in advance and mentioning the likely date of listing. Towards expeditious disposal, no further notice would be issued and the matter may be heard and disposed of on the first day of listing.

Notably, the rules also provide that in the matters listed before the IPD, intervention by third parties may be permitted suo moto or upon an application by any person. The IPD may refuse or accept such application after hearing the parties concerned.

The rules also provide for the consolidation of multiple proceedings relating to the same or related IPR, irrespective of whether the said proceedings are between the same parties or not, subject to the discretion of IPD.

Further, the rules also provide for summary adjudication without the requirement of filing a specific application seeking summary judgement, in cases not related to patents. The rules lay down separate categories based on which summary adjudication maybe considered in patent cases. The IPD has also been empowered to maintain a panel of experts and appoint two law researchers for assistance with techno-legal aspects pertaining to IPR.

The Draft Rules can be accessed here – https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/Upload/PublicNotices/PublicNotice_5J4GUGI051K.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

Strategies for Geographical Indications Protection: Takeaways from India is a paper published in 2021 [Ananthu S Hari & Prof. (Dr.) K.D Raju, Strategies for Geographical Indications Protection: Takeaways from India. National University of Advanced Legal Studies Law Review (2021)]. The paper highlights that the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (GIGA) is a relatively new IP legislation, having only been enacted in late 2003. As a result, there are still areas of worry and confusion over the legislation’s execution in order to achieve the fundamental goals set forth when it was drafted. GIGA is an important legislation that goes well beyond simply meeting TRIPS responsibilities. Despite the fact that GIGA has been in effect for two decades, there is still a significant dearth of knowledge regarding the law.

In India, GI protection is not the same as it is in the EU and other developed countries. Wine and spirit protection is viewed as more crucial in the EU, whereas agricultural products and handicrafts are prioritised in India. As a result, GI protection measures must target these challenges independently. It is critical to have regional agreements among developing countries in order to properly preserve agricultural and handicraft exports. The author suggests that a similar agreement among Asian countries, akin to the EU Regulation on Geographical Indications, could be a viable option. This type of collaboration could help to bolster attempts to extend product protection.

In a developing country like India, where farmers and artisans are unable to adequately secure the GI-tagged items on their own, the government has a key role to play in terms of exporting, marketing, and infringement prevention. Since GI is regarded as “a poor man’s IPR,” government intervention is necessary to defend the collective rights and interests of GI holders. The establishment of a producer’s collective under government supervision, such as the INAO in France, may benefit the producers. In addition to the challenges of preventing infringement at the domestic level, the Government also has the extra responsibility of registering and marketing Indian products in foreign jurisdictions.

The paper concludes by putting forth the idea that enacting a comprehensive GI policy, forming a strong producer collective, and actively participating in regional agreements with GI protection measures are some of the positive initiatives India might pursue for greater GI protection. Apart from these steps, negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with the EU that focuses purely on GIs would also be undoubtedly helpful to Indian GIs. The paper can be accessed here: http://ciprnuals.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/III_01.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

Data exclusivity is a practice in which drug regulatory agencies prohibit the innovator company’s test data to be utilised in the registration of a generic version of that treatment. Since the marketing approval procedure is time-consuming and costly, the creators of regulatory data want exclusive periods of protection for their investments and resultant data collection. Generic producers in India, on the other hand, push for minimal protection in order to secure faster marketing approvals. The author believes that providing IP protection to clinical test data would ultimately, have a negative effect on the commercial drug market in India.

To support the argument of the author against the data exclusivity practice is, primarily, based on the detrimental impact it could have on public health. The accessibility to affordable generic drugs by the public at large remains a priority, however, this should not be accomplished at the expense of its quality and effectiveness. Moreover, generic companies usually lack the financial capabilities to undertake the entire task of conducting clinical trials and assimilating data.

In India, wages per capita income is lower in comparison to with first-world countries [1], and the unavailability of generics would inevitably result in high prices for many life-saving drugs. A prolonged delay in performing clinical studies by drug manufacturers will result in a delay of availability of such drugs at a reasonable price in the market, which is often a time-sensitive problem. This would also result in pharmaceutical giants having monopoly over such drugs. Hence, many life-saving drugs will be out of reach for individuals suffering from the deadliest diseases due to the lack of cheaper generics.

It is also noted that the clinical trial process involves ethical questions, as the proposed drugs have to be tested on animals and then on the human beings. If data exclusivity practice is adopted, then generic drug manufacturers will be compelled to undertake clinical trials for getting the marketing approval of the generic version of the same medicine. This would lead to duplicative testing and would amount to unnecessary and possible human injury associated with such process.

Therefore, if data exclusivity practice is approved, generic companies would encounter more challenges in securing marketing approvals, thereby increasing the cost of drugs available to consumers. This would negatively impact the availability of generic drugs at affordable prices in the market. Thus, the author strongly opines that the data exclusivity practice would have an adverse impact on the Indian pharmaceutical market, and should not be allowed.

______________________________________

[1] World Bank, GDP Per Capita, available at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD.

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