The Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce under the chairmanship of Mr. V. Vijayasai presented a report titled, “161^st Report: Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India” (“the Report”) in Rajya Sabha on 23rd July, 2021. This comprehensive report proposes major changes to the current IPR Regime by addressing awareness initiatives, amendments to the current IP legislations, active involvement of State Governments and re-assessment of the IPR Policy, 2016, etc.

The Report observes Section 52(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“the Act”), which provides an exception and allows copying of the authored works, for reading and recitation in the public domain for use in educational institutions. The Report identifies that this Section may prove to be detrimental to the publishing industry/authors who majorly earn through their royalties. Taking note of this, the Report suggests facilitation of fair and equitable procedure by the way of amending Section 51(1) to permit reprographic works in Government-owned educational institutions and storing it in libraries for easy access and allowing limitations to unrestricted commercial grants to copy literary work and storing them in digital formats.

The Report promotes the implementation of the Central Government initiative of National Mission on Library which allows affordable accessibility to students and academicians via community libraries while simultaneously protecting rights of the author.

The Report guides the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (“DPIIT”) to look into the provisions of Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works for any exceptions to the Copyrights. The report observes that this would prove beneficial to the copyright holders and the public alike.

The Report further suggests some modifications to the Act. The report recommends to increase the renewal time of Copyright Societies from 5 to 10 years under Section 33(A) in order to reduce the administrative burden and the long delays in renewal.

Along with this, the Report notes the rising digital or Over the Top (“OTT”) platforms which contributes widely to the economy. According to the report, India would be the tenth largest market globally with around 805 million internet subscribers by 2022. This is recognized as a need to include these OTT platforms under the benefit of statutory license along with traditional broadcasters. In furtherance of this, the Report suggests amendment to Section 31D of the Act to incorporate ‘internet or digital broadcasters’ under statutory license. The Report observes that this would ensure balance between the interests of traditional and internet broadcasters alike.

The Report can be accessed here:

https://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/Committee_site/Committee_File/ReportFile/13/141/161_2021_7_15.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 Bewildering Predicament of Voice Actors in India: A Performer’s Right Tragedy is a paper published in 2021 [Rohan Cherian Thomas, ‘The Bewildering Predicament of Voice Actors in India: A Performer’s Right Tragedy’. Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law (2020. The paper aims to discern the issues faced by voice actors. Through detailed interviews from some voice actors, the paper seeks to analyse the recorded interviews through the lens of The Copyright Act, 1957 and The Copyright Rules, 2013. The paper also attempts possible solutions.

The perception of the audience can be affected if a dub is not done properly or if the sound does not sync with what they see on the screen and this issue is called a ‘lip flap’ in the industry. A bad dub can ruin even the greatest content. The public eye is focused on an actor and these skilled individuals do not get the recognition they deserve and are often underpaid. To remedy this, the paper suggests that the voice actor should enjoy the same rights as a performer actor.

The paper draws attention to the unrecognized existence of the voice actors. By voice actors it means both dubbing artistes as well as voice-over artistes. The power balance in the industry works against voice actors, criticism can be met with reprisal. After all, artists have to find work within the industry. This is the reason why many voice actors refused to be interviewed. The paper highlights the efforts and skill of the dubbing artiste and finds that some actors acclaimed for their roles choose, unfortunately, to discredit the dubbing artiste.

The paper examines the efficacy of the laws protecting the rights of these dubbing artiste. The paper highlights The Copyright Act, 1957 and The Copyright Rules, 2013. It suggests to insert the term ‘Voice Actor’ in section 2(qq) of the act and also to insert ‘Originality’ in section 38 of the act. Further, it advises the formation of a performer’s society Dedicated to Voice Actors and to insert mandatory licensing through performer’s society in accordance with the existing Act. 

The paper concludes that associations of voice actors across the country have to educate their community. A voice actor should realise the benefit of being a part of a society and contributing to the industry with skill and effort. The paper recommends that in the meantime the industry comes up with a scheme to benefit the performer’s rights granted under the Copyright statutes. 

The paper can be accessed here –

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rEptn_8ljJ4WM2PPNeClSyi6GfEiF1mJ/view]

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 161^st Report on “Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India” recently recommended the creation of an Intellectual Property (“IP”) Fund to develop an “IP culture” in tribal and hilly areas in India. The author believes that the creation of an IP Fund is not necessary to foster an IP culture among traditional communities.

Due to lack of development and adequate resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions are often the primary forms of IP originating from the tribal and hilly areas of India. Currently, there is no framework or treaty at the national or global level dealing specifically with traditional knowledge. India has adopted defensive protection of traditional knowledge in the form of the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, which prevents the patenting of inventions based on traditional knowledge. This is a passive form of protection which does not empower tribal communities to be in charge of the exploitation of their own IP.

An IP Fund becomes pointless if there is no mechanism in place for communities to harness and enforce their IP rights. The Fund might promote initiatives to raise awareness about IP, but a community cannot utilize this knowledge if it does not have recourse to legal action against those appropriating their traditional knowledge. Even if an IP Fund is established, it would need laws and regulations to govern its management and allocation of funds. Considering the lack of a global convention on this issue, enacting legislation at the national level would be a small but significant step. It would at least prevent unauthorized exploitation of traditional knowledge at the local level and grant a community a degree of ownership over their own traditional knowledge.

Many tribal and hilly areas in India are conflict-ridden zones. In such cases, a more holistic view of development and preservation of tribal culture would be more helpful than a Fund specifically meant for instilling IP culture within these communities. It is important to acknowledge the tribes as more than a mine for IP. The tribal and indigenous communities of India are a living source of dynamic traditional knowledge and practices. The welfare of these communities should be funded through various departments responsible for different facets of development instead of a single IP Fund.

While the intentions behind creating an IP Fund are admirable, doing so without first improving the IP regime surrounding traditional knowledge in India would be akin to putting a band-aid on a broken leg.

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 Information and Broadcasting (MIB) vide notification dated June 18, 2021, has published the draft Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021 (“Bill”) based on the observations and recommendations proposed by The Standing Committee on Information Technology (2019-20). The Bill proposes changes in certification category, term of validity of certificate, revisionary power of Central Government and introduces provisions on piracy. The four major changes are outlined below.

The Bill proposes further subdivision of the category ‘unrestricted public exhibition subject to’ on the basis of age. The current draft identifies and proposes to bring the sub-division of U/A category into U/A 7+, U/A 13+ and U/A 16+. In furtherance of the same, the Bill proposes to amend provisions relating to Examination of Films [section 4(1)(i)]; Certification of Films [section 5A(1)(a)]; and Revisional Powers of the Central Government [section 6(2)(b)].

The Bill identifies the need for amending section 5A(3) concerning the restriction on validity of certificate. The current draft proposes the provision be amended to remove the stipulation of ten years such that the certificate is valid in perpetuity.

The Bill confers revisional powers on the Central Government by adding a Proviso to section 6(1) which will empower the Central Government to direct the Chairman of the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) to re-examine a film already certified for public exhibition. This power can be exercised on account of violation of section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The reasonable restrictions as provided for under Article 19(2) have been reproduced in section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952

The Bill also aims to address the concern of film piracy. The Bill introduces a new section 6AA to deter piracy which prohibits using an audiovisual recording device to knowingly make or transmit or attempt to make or transmit or abet the making or transmission of a copy of a film or a part thereof without the written authorization of the author. Furthermore, it also proposes the insertion of new sub-section 1A in section 7 to stipulate the penalties for contravention of this part. The penalties include imprisonment for a term ranging from three months to three years and with a fine not less than three lakh rupees extendable to 5% of the audited gross production cost or with both. The penalty provision also contains a proviso that excludes acts mentioned under section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 from the purview of the proposed section 6AA.

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 Covid-19 pandemic has changed the world as we know it. It has redefined the bounds of workspace, and merged it with our homes. Hitherto, working-from-home was unheard of as far as the practice of law in India was concerned. While some firms did allow a modest hybrid work arrangement, most law firms were traditionally set up, requiring lawyers and administrators to be physically present in the office.

The shift from working in a traditional firm setup to working remotely was rather sudden but, over the past year, things have changed, boundaries pushed and new systems developed. Law firms have devised internal policies to be followed by the retained lawyers, invested in technological support to assure smooth functioning like digitisation of documents, evidence, etc., and have been educating their employees on best practices.

However, work-from-home is concomitant with the pandemic. Firms, as well as lawyers, have been waiting to get back to working normally once the situation eases. This is primarily because India’s legal and judicial processes are not yet fully equipped or ready for  a complete shift towards remote work. This is because a lot of the legal-administrative work still needs to be done physically like  examining voluminous pages of evidence or cross-examination of witnesses, etc. .While courts and other forums have started conducting video conference (VC) hearings, there is still much to be accomplished in terms of fixing/upgrading the tech support for conducting smooth VC hearings, digitisation of court records, enabling easy access to general litigation or chamber lawyers.  

In my opinion, IP firms seem to have an edge over general litigation firms. Even before the pandemic wreaked havoc, most IP-related at least transactional or prosecution work could be done via the internet- be it conducting searches, filing registration applications, or communication between the firm and the relevant authorities- to give a few examples. With the pandemic forcing IP authorities to hear even contentious matters online, the primary offline-exclusive work has been brought into the remote work-able category. At present, most IP firms have implemented complete work-from-home, and few operate in a hybrid set-up.

In this author’s view, IP firms can consider going virtual even after the pandemic ends to reap the benefits of work-from-home which inter alia allows greater diversity and inclusion. Remote work offers several advantages, such as reducing costs by minimising the need for physical office space and associated expenses, bringing in the possibility of flexible work timings, attracting a wider talent pool as a potential hire’s geographical location stops being a factor, increased productivity, reduction in overall carbon footprint, etc. If an IP firm does not want to go completely virtual, a hybrid workspace can surely be created, wherein lawyers get to work from their homes for a set number of hours or days each week, and still be efficient and productive.

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