Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.32 seconds)Section 17 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 26 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Universal Petrochemicals Ltd. vs Rajasthan State Electricity Board on 17 April, 2001
In this connection, the counsel for the defendant relied upon the decision reported in AIR 2001 CAL 102(Universal Petrochemicals Ltd., Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board), wherein, it has been held that the statutory provision will override any agreement between the parties and a private contract cannot override a statute and the above position of law is explained by the above said decision in the following manner:
Section 18 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Fortune Films International vs Dev Anand And Anr. on 14 March, 1978
20. The above provisions would only go to show that inasmuch as the plaintiff under Ex.P1 had agreed to give her performance for the ad film taken pursuant to the same, shall not thereafter object to the enjoyment of the said film by the purchaser unless there is a contract to the contrary. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that for the ad film shot pursuant to Ex.P1, the plaintiff has been paid the remuneration and the same is not disputed. Therefore, the plaintiff has been paid the remuneration for the services rendered by her and when admittedly, the plaintiff under Ex.P1 had conferred the copyright of the cinematography film on the defendant under clause 4 of Ex.P1 without any restriction whatsoever and when as discussed above, the period governing the agreement cannot operate against the provisions of the statute, it is found that the clause 4 of Ex.P1 cannot be equated to a contract to the contrary, as has been provided under clause 2 of Section 38(A) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Therefore, the plaintiff having conferred to the copy right of the film to the defendant absolutely without any restriction cannot complain that there is a contract to the contrary relying upon clause 4 of the agreement Ex.P1, when, as discussed above, the said clause will not in any manner curtail the entitlement of the defendant of his copyright. Therefore, the plaintiffs contention that her performance right cannot be isolated from the copyright as such also cannot be accepted in any manner. That apart, it is also noted that, as argued by the defendant's counsel, upon the completion of the production of the ad film, no rights or interest of the performer as such survives and in this connection, the decisions reported in AIR 1979 Bombay 17(Fortune Films International Vs. Dev Anand and Anr),(1977) 3 SCR 206 (Indian Performing Right Society Ltd., Vs. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association and Ors.) and (1974) 33 STC 335 (Mad) (State of Madras Vs. A.L.S.Productions)are relied upon. A perusal of the above said decisions would go to show that on the completion of the production of Cinematography film, the copyright in the ad film would be vested only on the owner of the copyright i.e. purchaser of the film and it is only the purchaser, who can exploit the same and the performer as such cannot claim any individual right. In the light of the above discussions, when Ex.P1 particularly clause 4 contained therein cannot operate as a contract to the contrary, particularly, curtailing the time or period of copyright conferred on the defendant thereunder, it is found that the plaintiff cannot claim any right as such, known as performer's right, in respect of the cinematography film taken pursuant to Ex.P1.
State Of Assam vs Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha on 17 March, 2009
24. Further, as noted above, according to the plaintiff, as given in the plaint, the ad film shot under Ex.P1 had been telecasted by the Sun T.V. on 01.09.2011 during the telecast of the film Aadukalam. With reference to the above case of the plaintiff, it is not the case of PW1 that he was personally aware of the same. On the other hand, PW1 would only state that one of the staff members had informed him about the telecast of the advertisement in Sun T.V on 01.09.2011. It is therefore clear that PW1 is not aware of the said fact. Moreso, the concerned staff member, who had informed about the same, has not been examined as a witness. As indicated above, the plaintiff has not chosen to examine herself in support of her case. Therefore, for the proof of the basis on which the plaintiff has laid the case, there is nil material. It is found that the plaintiff has issued two notices before the institution of the suit i.e. on 16.02.2009 marked as Ex.P2 and legal notice dated 12.09.2011 marked as Ex.P6. Though PW1 would claim that the above said notices had been given as per his instructions, a reading of the above said notices would go to show that the same had been issued pursuant to the instructions of the plaintiff. Therefore, PW1 cannot claim to be instructor of the above said notices and in such view of the matter, it is found that PW1 is not even aware of the contents of the above said notices as such. That apart, it is also found that PW1 is not aware of the suit transaction and when he was confronted with the same, at the first instance, he would claim that the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that he is aware of the said transaction but when the plaint copy was shown to him, he has admitted that it has not been so stated in the plaint. Therefore, it is found that PW1 is totally ignorant of the facts and circumstances of the case pleaded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in her plaint, has stated that when she was approached by M/s.Emami, the competitor of the defendant for the shooting of the film, on account of the misuse of her profile by the defendant, there were queries raised by M/s.Emami and other concerned and thereby, according to the plaintiff her reputation and fame had been tarnished by the defendant and therefore, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.