Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Section 48 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Shyam Lal Paharia And Anr. vs Gaya Prasad Gupta 'Rasal' on 10 August, 1970
He also referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Shyam Lal Paharia $ Am. v. Gaya Prasad Gupta 'Rasal', .
Michael Heath Nathan Johnson vs Subhash Chandra And Ors. on 1 November, 1995
(11) Per contra Mr. K.G. Bansal learned Counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff has not proved its rights in the Copyrights. The work was done by somebody. The plaintiff claims only an assignment and the assignment has not been proved by the plaintiff. The matter dealt with by the books of the plaintiff and the defendants are known to the people as they are very from the common source which is nature and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claims any copyright and as a matter of fact, no infringement of the rights of the plaintiff by the defendants. He brought to my notice the judgment of this Court reported in Michael Heath Nathan Johnson v. Subhash Chandra & Ors., 1995 Ptc (15) 300. He referred to para 96 wherein the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.C. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films and Ors., are extracted by me. Mr. Bansal learned Counsel for the defendants referred to Section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957. That Section reads as under: "19.Mode of assignment-(1) No assignment of the copyright in any work shall be valid unless it is in writing signed by the assignor or by his duly authorised agent. (2) The assignment of copyright in any work shall identify such work and shall specify the rights assigned and the duration and territorial extent of such assignment. (3) The assignment of copyright in any work shall also specify the amount of royalty payable, if any, to the author or his legal heirs during the currency of the assignment and the assignment shall be subject to revision, extension or termination on terms mutually agreed upon by the parties. (4) Where the assignee does not excise the rights assigned to him under any of the other sub-sections of this section within period of one year from the date of assignment, the assignment in respect of such rights shall be deemed to have lapsed after the expiry of the said period unless otherwise specified in the assignment. (5) If the period of assignment is not stated, it shall be deemed to be five years from the date of assignment. (6) If the territorial extent of assignment of the rights is not specified, it shall be presumed to extend within India. (7) Nothing in Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) or Sub section (5) or Sub-section (6) shall be applicable to assignments made before the coming into force of the Copyright (Amendments) Act, 1994. 19-A. Disputes with respect to assignment of copyright-(1) If an assignee fails to make sufficient exercise of the rights assigned to him, and such failure is not attributable to any act or omission of the assignor, then, the copyright Board may, on receipt of a complaint from the assigner and after holding such inquiry as it may deem necessary, revoke such assignment. (2) If any dispute arises with respect to the assignment of any copyright, the Copyright Board may, on receipt of a complaint from the aggrieved party and after holding such inquiry as it considers necessary, pass such order as it may deem fit including an order for the recovery of any royalty payable : Provided that the Copyright Board shall not pass any order under this subsection to revoke the assignment unless it is satisfied that the terms of assignment are harsh to the assigner in case the assigner is also the author. Provided further that no order of revocation of assignment under this subsection, shall be made within a period of five years from the date of such assignment.
K.A. Venugopala Setty vs Dr. Suryakantha U. Kamath on 20 July, 1990
He referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in K.A Venugopala Setty v. Dr. Suryakantha U. Kamath, .
Section 2 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. vs Rajnish Chibber on 20 October, 1995
(10) The learned Counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Ajay Sahni brought to my notice the claims in the plaint and also the claims in the written statement. He referred to Section 2(0) of the Copyrights Act, 1957. He made a close comparative study of Volume Iv and Living Science and Volume Iv of Human Science and the other Volumes of the plaintiffs and the defendants. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajnish Chibber & Anr." in 1995 Ptc (15) 1995,279 at page 283 in para 11.3 which reads as follows: "11.3 Govindan v. Gopalakrishna, was a case of compilation. It was held that though in the case of "compilation" the amount of originality will be very small but even that small amount is protected by law and no man is entitled to steal or appropriate for himself the result of another's brain, skill or labour even in such works. On the defense plea of common source it was held : "A person relying on it must show that he went to the common source from which he borrowed, employing his skill, labour and brains and that he did not merely do the work of the copyist, by copying away from another work".
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012
V. Govindan vs E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone And Anr. on 1 December, 1954
(10) The learned Counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Ajay Sahni brought to my notice the claims in the plaint and also the claims in the written statement. He referred to Section 2(0) of the Copyrights Act, 1957. He made a close comparative study of Volume Iv and Living Science and Volume Iv of Human Science and the other Volumes of the plaintiffs and the defendants. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajnish Chibber & Anr." in 1995 Ptc (15) 1995,279 at page 283 in para 11.3 which reads as follows: "11.3 Govindan v. Gopalakrishna, was a case of compilation. It was held that though in the case of "compilation" the amount of originality will be very small but even that small amount is protected by law and no man is entitled to steal or appropriate for himself the result of another's brain, skill or labour even in such works. On the defense plea of common source it was held : "A person relying on it must show that he went to the common source from which he borrowed, employing his skill, labour and brains and that he did not merely do the work of the copyist, by copying away from another work".