Search
Close this search box.

The Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012: The right of artistes

The revamped Bill offers artistes different rights for different media

Not very long ago, issues like patents, trademarks, copyright, etc, collectively called intellectual property rights (IPRs), were sort of alien subjects relating mainly to foreign companies and some large Indian companies. However, people have become more conscious of their rights regarding their creations. The past few years have seen the emergence of a strong campaign by some leading film personalities for protecting the rights of writers, singers, lyricists, etc. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (the Act) governs the law applicable to copyright, modelled along the British laws. The Copyright Act of 1914 was, in turn, based on the British Copyright Act, 1911. Similarly, the Copyright Act, 1957 borrowed extensively from the Copyright Act of the United Kingdom of 1956.

According to Wikipedia, “Copyright is a right given by the law to creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings. In fact, it is a bundle of rights including, inter alia, rights of reproduction, communication to the public, adaptation and translation of the work. There could be slight variations in the composition of the rights depending on the work.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines copyright as: “The exclusive right given by law for a certain term of years to an author, composer, etc (or his assignee), to print, publish and sell copies of his original work.”

The Act has served well but, in recent years, there was a demand for effecting changes in the Act to protect the interest of persons who have not been protected under the Act for no fault of theirs, mainly singers, lyrists, writers, etc. The Copyright Amendment Bill, 2012 (the Bill) incorporates the desired changes in the law. The Bill has been approved by both the houses of Parliament.

A major challenge before the lawmakers was about the fact that changes in technology could play havoc with the rights of a person, unless there is adequate protection in law; a case in point being the change in the way films, songs, etc, are produced and broadcast. A few decades back, there were not many modes or options available to producers of cinema to exploit their product, but the last decade and a half has changed the landscape dramatically. Today, producers of cinema have several avenues to exhibit their product and generate revenues for themselves and this includes the use of songs and music as well.
However, a problem arose when producers refused to share the additional spoils with the original creators/ singers on the ground that all the rights were with the producers as they had already paid for them. They refused to take cognisance of the fact that new technologies have provided hitherto non-existent avenues / mediums for exploiting different aspects of cinema and its music. The Bill attempts to redress this grievance of artistes of different genres who can assign different rights in respect of their creations.

A very important change in favour of the creators is that any such assignment will not be applicable to any medium or mode of exploitation of the work which did not exist or was not in commercial use at the time when the assignment was made. In other words, unless the assignment specifically referred to such medium or mode of exploitation of the work, it will not be automatically valid. The effect of the change will be that, in future, with the advent of new technologies and opening up of new avenues of revenue generation, the interest of assignees will be protected and they would be entitled to a share in the earnings generated by the new income streams.

The Bill has also attempted to streamline the functioning of the Copyrights Board by effecting important changes in its constitution and management. Hopefully, these changes will make the Copyrights Board nimble-footed to meet the demands of a dynamic situation where change will be the only constant.

Source: http://www.moneylife.in/article/the-copyright-amendment-bill-2012-the-right-of-artistes/26764.html

MEPs finally reject ACTA copyright treaty

By Stewart Mitchell

The European Parliament has rejected the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), drawing a line under a proposed law that has caused bitter debate for years.

ACTA started life behind closed doors as global rights holders and politicians looked to address intellectual property issues online.

European regulators held a key hand in the process, effectively signing – or not signing – on behalf of member states. Today MEPs voted overwhelmingly against the agreement, 478 to 39.

“This is a major victory for citizens and organisations who worked hard for years,” said campaign group La Quadrature du Net in a statement. “On the ruins of ACTA, we must now build a positive copyright reform, taking into account our rights instead of attacking them.

“The ACTA victory must resonate as a wake up call for lawmakers – fundamental freedoms as well as the free and open internet must prevail over private interests.”
Read more: MEPs finally reject ACTA copyright treaty | News | PC Pro http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/375670/meps-finally-reject-acta-copyright-treaty#ixzz1zoKUiSpQ

WHO Report Details Accountability In Director Chan’s First Term

By William New, Intellectual Property Watch

World Health Organization Director General Margaret Chan was re-elected for another term at the annual May World Health Assembly. Now the WHO has issued a “report card” showing how she kept her promises during the first term. This includes a range of steps to ensure new drugs are affordable and accessible, even if intellectual property rights make them high-priced and hard to get.

The commitment the WHO took on was to: “Ensure that interventions, including new drugs, that arise from these initiatives are affordable and accessible to those in need.”

In response, it listed various activities and initiatives that member states have taken in the past couple of years, including adoption of the Global Strategy and Plan of Action for Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property.

“The Global Strategy set out the framework, and laid the groundwork, for multiple ways to improve access to essential products,” it said.

WHO specified the effectiveness of its work in helping developing countries use the built-in flexibilities in the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) for public health purposes.

“Moral pressure on industry, also using flexibilities in the TRIPS agreement, contributed to dramatic reductions in the price of antiretroviral therapy, with the annual costs of treatment dropping, within a decade, from $30,000 to $200,” it said.

The report also mentioned ways in which “WHO endorsement of new products can likewise stimulate dramatic price reductions for developing countries.”

And it mentioned several key vaccine-related initiatives, including one on meningitis that meant that “For once, the best technology that the world, working together, can offer was introduced in Africa.”

Other areas mentioned include financing of research and development of products for neglected diseases, affordable medicines against noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), and a framework to ensure fairness in fighting pandemic influenza.

“In May 2012, the World Health Assembly approved a way forward for exploring innovative ways of financing R&D to produce new products for neglected diseases of the poor,” it said.

On NCDs, it said: “The relentless rise of chronic noncommunicable diseases, especially in the developing world, is certain to create new challenges for access to affordable medicines. While many essential medicines for managing these chronic conditions are off-patent and available in low-cost generic form, the millions of people now affected, and the duration of needed treatment, take these products beyond the reach of health budgets in most developing countries.”

Additional areas of work described in the report are help to engender local R&D in developing countries such as in Africa, and WHO’s role and relationship with other organisations.

There is some mention of the inability to complete work due to funding shortages. Furthermore, one area of shortcoming was in the mandate to “integrate WHO activities across the health research spectrum to promote health and to prevent and control disease.”

“In May 2010, the Health Assembly approved a WHO strategy on research for health. However, this commitment has not been fully met,” it said. “In 2013, the World Health Report will be devoted to health research, with a particular focus on research that improves access to essential medicines and services and supports the goal of reaching universal health coverage.”

The WHO report is available here [pdf].

William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

CEHURD Appeals to the Supreme Court

CEHURD filed Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2011 and the Attorney General raised an objection that the petition as framed involves issues of separation of powers (Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary).

Petition 16 is a landmark maternal health case that seeks among others a declaration that by women dying in public health facilities due to lack of maternal health commodities is a violation of their rights to health and life.

The objection raised by the Attorney General was upheld by the Constitutional Court and CEHURD has appealed against the same to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court upholds the objection, this will mean that maternal health is not a priority in Uganda.  Women will continue to die since government will not be tasked to prioritize their rights.  On average it is estimated that 16 pregnant women die everyday in Uganda.

Activists to Pursue Maternal Health Case Against Government

By Andrew Green

Kampala — A petition backed by over 50 NGOs and charging Uganda’s government with failing to prevent the deaths of expectant mothers was thrown out by the constitutional court on 5 June, but the petition’s supporters plan to appeal.

The constitutional court argued that upholding the petition, which urges the government to boost health services, would have forced judges to wade into a political issue that was outside their jurisdiction.

However, the petitioners said the court relied on outdated international law in making its decision and overlooked its constitutional obligation to protect Uganda’s mothers.

Principal State Attorney Patricia Mutesi, who argued the case for the government, said the petition “was asking the court to do the work of the parliament in reviewing the efficiency of the health sector”.

The petition, which centred around the deaths of two mothers (Sylvia Nalubowa in central Uganda and Jennifer Anguko in the north), got nationwide media coverage when it was filed in March 2011. It said the women’s deaths could have been prevented if the health centres where they died had had “basic indispensable health maternal commodities” and if health workers at the facilities had not neglected the two women.

In throwing out the case, the justices suggested the petitioners seek an order from the high court compelling a public officer, such as a government health worker, to carry out his or her duties, or to request compensation for individual deaths from the government.

On 14 June the petitioners filed a notice informing the Supreme Court and the Attorney General’s office of their plan to appeal against the constitutional court decision; they have 50 days to finalize and file the appeal.

Rights denied?

Moses Mulumba is the executive director of the Centre for Health, Human Rights & Development (CEHURD) – the group that originally pushed the petition forward. He said the court’s decision not to wade into a “political question” was based on antiquated law and failed to address the fact that women were being denied rights guaranteed under Uganda’s constitution.

“I think it was very wrong for the judiciary to rely on very old United States jurisprudence to inform their decisions on clear violations of human rights,” he said. The courts should focus on upholding the constitution, he said, instead of “hiding under old political doctrines.”

In a country where statistics show that 16 women die every day from childbirth complications, the activists generally charged the government with perpetuating a maternal death rate that is “unacceptably high”. Ultimately, they are looking for the government to invest more in the country’s health system, to improve care and make sure critical resources are always available.

Valente Inziku, Anguko’s husband and one of the petitioners, said he watched his wife bleed to death as he tried to get nurses at the hospital to attend to her. “When she started bleeding seriously, the only the thing [the staff] did was they came and they told me… to clean the blood,” he said.

“People are disappointed, but we are not stopping there,” said Sylveria Alwoch, of the Uganda National Health Consumers Organization, one of the groups that supported the petition. “We are encouraging people to always report those cases. They shouldn’t be demotivated… They should still have that courage, that vigilance to speak out and bring out those issues.”

Win or lose, CEHURD’s Mulumba said;

the petition had raised awareness of the country’s ongoing maternal deaths and helped rally people around the cause.