ABSTRACT
A field of rights identified with copyright has quickly created in the course of the most recent 50 years. These related rights have created around copyrighted works and give comparative, however increasingly limited protection. This paper examines the question as to the definition of a performer. It tries to evaluate the reasons for the weak position of performers. It makes a critical assessment of judicial response to performer’s rights in India. It further discusses the impact of recent changes in the performers position in India.
The Copyright Act 1957, the prevailing legislation on Copyright accords a bundle of rights to the author. This paper examines the nuance of the Performers’ Rights accorded for Public Performances vis-a-vis the advent of technology and progress therein.
Keywords: Performers’ rights , copyright law , moral rights , protection , amendments.
PERFORMER’S RIGHTS IN INDIA
INTRODUCTION
The visual or acoustic performances of actors, musicians, singers or dancers forms a key part of the creative process and the performers who display their talents through their artistic performances must be entitled for certain rights over such performances as well as a share in the proceeds from its commercial exploitation.
Copyright is a piece of the intellectual property which gives a legitimate right to the original creator of a work. The copyright law protects the intellectual creations in the work that is original. Prior the idea of Copyright was restricted to books, painting, and movies, yet now the ambit is augmented to try and incorporate computer software and compilation of data.Before the amendment of the Copyright Act in 1994, no protection was given to on-screen characters, jugglers, artists , dancers and so forth. The Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter alluded to as the Act) was quiet on the performers’ rights, be that as it may, after the amendment in 1994, it perceived the rights of the performer under Section 38 of the Act and henceforth the idea of ‘Performers Rights’ was presented.
Throughout the only remaining century, performers progressively obtained statutory protection of their economic and moral rights. These rights are not copyright in the lawful sense but rather neighboring rights and as of not long ago, they were basically remuneration rights that are all in all directed. With the WPPT (WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty), performers currently haveindividual exclusive rights for digital performances.
Performers are recognized by the society as vital links between literary, dramatic and musical works and the public. There is no uncertainty that performers spend adequate skill and work to justify copyright protection. Our great musicians – vocalists and instrumentalists, talented dancers, popular actors on the stage and on the screen, and other performing artists who delight the hearts and feast the eyes and ears of millions of people every day by their visual or acoustic presentations who keep alive our rich and varied cultural heritage did not enjoy protection till recently. Performer’s position in law, thus, has been quite weak as the copyright law did not recognize the rights of performers. Laymen, including performing artists, were apt to raise their eye-brows in disbelief at this state of our law.
PERFORMER’S RIGHTS
A performer is an individual who takes part in a performance, brings conventional or modern potential into action that act on his behalf, or otherwise artistically fulfils by means of personal achievement the operative facts that constitute a performance, if there is an existing possibility for him to artistically influence the actual and temporal course of the performance[1]. In layman’s parlance, performers are actors, musicians, singers, dancers, and other persons who perform, usually artistic or literary works. They are the ones who grace the television screens, cinematographic houses, cultural venues, theatrical stages, and even ordinary streets in order to entertain, educate, and enliven different types of audiences.
The rights of performing artists in their performances of literary and artistic works are in general covered by the concept of “related rights.” If the rights provided by copyright apply to authors, “related rights”, also known as “neighboring rights” concern other categories of owners of rights, other than the author.
In intellectual property law, ‘neighboring rights’ cover three kinds of rights: the rights of performing artists in their performances; the rights of producers of phonograms over such phonograms; and the rights of broadcasting organizations in their radio and television programs. These holders of related rights make use of literary or artistic works in order to make the same publicly accessible to others.
Related rights belong to its owners who are regarded as intermediaries in the production, recording or distribution of works. They are considered to be auxiliaries in the intellectual creation process in acknowledgement of their valuable assistance to authors. The public can only access the creation by virtue of these ‘middle-men.’ As such, the broadcasting organisations broadcast works and phonograms in their stations, the record industry records and produces songs and music written by musical writers and composers, and actors perform roles in plays written by playwrights.
Given their significant part in the intellectual property system, owners of related rights likewise need protection against the illegal exploitation of their respective contributions.
The performances of actors, singers, musicians and dancers are an integral part of the creative process in presentations to the public. Since the very first performance recordings, in sound and images, it has been accepted that performers should have some rights over those recordings and a share in the proceeds from their commercial exploitation.
The interest of every performing artist is not limited to purely monetary compensation for the work he or she has undertaken. One’s economic rights over his or her work exist independently of his or her personal rights. It is the protection of the creator’s personal expression and spiritual embodiment within the work which constitutes his or her moral rights.[2] These rights are based on the recognition that the work of a creator reflects his character. The term “moral rights,” was taken from the French term “droid moral”, which means non-economic or personal rights. This concept dilutes the pure economic approach to copyright with alien personality rights.[3] These rights protect the personal, rather than purely financial, value of a work to its creator.[4]
In the moral rights context, whoever attacks a particular work, is actually attacking the honour and the reputation of its creator.
Actors, singers, comedians, dancers and musicians come into the public’s eye by virtue of their work. But with utter confidence, many performers would declare that financial rewards are not their paramount motivation for doing what they do best. Theirs is still a world of sacred honour, where name and reputation precedes money in terms of importance. Their performances are seen as extensions of their personality and thus, they need to be assured that they exercise a certain degree of control over their respective works. They must at least be assured that their names are properly recognized in relation to the performances they have made. And more importantly, since their name and reputation is at stake, they must be given the right to prevent others from modifying their performances in a way which will offend their integrity.
NEED FOR PROTECTION OF PERFORMER’S RIGHTS
Intellectual property law generally adheres to the principle that performers shall be given rights in relation to their performances. Performers shall have the right to control not only the performing event, but also any other form of further exploitation of such performances. This particular need to accord considerable protection to the rights of performers came about with the development of technology that enabled performances to be recorded and broadcast. Gone were the days when each performance would end with its public presentation in front of an audience. Prior to the introduction of these technological breakthroughs, access to performances was restricted to the spectators who were present in the immediate vicinity where the performance took place. This almost face-to-face arrangement has provided the performer with a relatively comfortable system of collecting payment for their work.
At the dawn of the twentieth century, technical systems were developed not only to enable performances to be recorded, but also to broadcast these live and recorded performances and communicate the same to the public. Henceforth, the world has been a witness to a variety of sound and recording techniques, as well as modern possibilities of ‘reviving’ or ‘representing’ performances – thereby creating a wide gap between the performers and their audience.
The eventual divergence of performers from the live public due to the introduction of recording and broadcasting mechanisms, made it more difficult for performers to control the exploitation of their performances.
Performers must only have right over that part of performance in which they alone have uniquely and distinctively contributed something – their voice and intonation , method of dialogue delivery , etc. This might be tried by exploring whether the topic would have been substantially unique if another performer had played out a similar execution. Hence, performers can have no rights over scripts , directions , costumes , music arrangements , etc. These materials are the creative property of different artists, however additionally would not have tangibly changed if the performer being referred to had not performed them.This will contribute in diminishing the cover among copyright and performers’ rights.
The performing arts demand that the created work be communicated to the public with the aid of performers. It is the performer who gives shape and form to the work. The success or failure of a musical or dramatic work will significantly depend on the efforts exerted by the performing artists. They are not merely reproducing an already existing work but rather they are interpreting said work, and in the process, creating something novel. The performers themselves have a valid interest over any subsequent adaptations of their own work. Undoubtedly so, there is a need to safeguard the interests of singers, musicians, dancers, actors or other persons who sing, dance, act or otherwise perform musical or artistic works against certain unlawful uses of their performances.
Preservation of an artist’s “natural rights,” as opposed to his or her rights to economic compensation, is the primary reason why many states seek to establish adequate means of protection for the moral or “spiritual” aspects of an artist’s work product.[5]
A performer protection regime in India might be prefaced on the accompanying three pronged model:
- Performers’ rights are given sui generis protection , and all economic , moral and non-tangible rights are protected;
- These rights protect even the non-commercial , community interests of performers , hence ensuring that folk culture is preserved;
- Performer’s rights are granted over only that part of the performance in which a performer has uniquely and distinctively contributed something, thus preventing any conflict with copyright laws.
The copyright law recognizes and protects the economic interest of the person creating an original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. The copyright protection was not required as long as literary, dramatic or musical works could not be multiplied or reproduced on a commercial scale. But with the development of modern technology, the multiplication or reproduction of the work has become easy. The economic value of the work has increased greatly with the invention of sound recording, photography, radio and television. The law protects these economic interests by conferring on the author exclusive cinematography, recording and broadcasting rights.
As far as the fixation of the performance is concerned, it was not possible till the first half of the last century as the technology has not developed by then to enable the live performance of a performer to be fixed. Due to this the performer was to repeat his performance again and again, as that was the only way to hear or see his performance.
But now the rapid development of modern technology has made it possible to fix a live performance whether the performance is on the stage or in the broadcasting studio, and use the recording for making more records for commercial use or for broadcasting by radio or television. The new technology has had two consequences for performers. The one that favours performers is that the demand for programmed material embodying their performances has multiplied and is still increasing, thus, creating new employment opportunities. The one that militates against performers is the task of controlling the uses made of their recorded performances. Once a performance is recorded it can be repeated in public without the necessity of engaging the performer whose performance has been recorded or indeed without the presence of any performer at all. In this respect their plight resembles that of authors in the field of “reprography” or phonogram producers in respect of “home taping”. Performers have, thus, lost countless employment opportunities. This may be called as “technological unemployment” of performers.
Thus, if someone records the performance of a performer without his consent, reproduces it and sells the records, or performs them in public, the performer himself had no remedy against such a person. Once a performance is fixed in a record or in a cinematograph film, the record-producer or the film producer as the owner of the copyright was protected by being given exclusive rights regarding the records or the film. The performer had not been given a right to share the royalties received by record producers or film producers for public performance or broadcasting of records or films. This was simply an unjust situation and, therefore, protecting performers was the need of hour to meet the challenge of new technology.
The minimum safeguard that is a performer’s due and the legal system must afford him is protection from “bootlegging” (illicit recording of his live performance) by ensuring that his live performance (wherever given) is (a) not “fixed”[6] in a tangible or material form without the performer’s consent; and (b) not broadcast or publicly performed without his consent. Bootlegging deprives the performer of his livelihood. Therefore, it is also necessary to protect him against: (i) reproduction or multiplication from such unauthorized fixation of his live performance; (ii) broadcasting or public performances of such unauthorized fixation. Finally, even where his performance is fixed with his consent, and therefore, is authorized fixation, it is necessary to protect him against reproduction of the authorized fixation for purposes different from those for which the performer gave consent for the initial fixation.
STATUS OF PERFORMER’S RIGHTS IN INDIA
The privileges of the performers were not perceived globally until the reception of the Rome Convention of 1961. This worldwide arrangement called for security against unapproved communication of any exhibitions without giving sufficient pay to the performers. These rights are far beyond the rights allowed to the first creator as well as proprietors of the work. These rights perceive that a performer being a craftsman has the benefit under the law to control others from broadcastinghis/her live execution to the general population without his permission. The Indian Copyright Act, likewise for quite a while neglected to give due acknowledgment to the privileges of the exhibitions and it was just in 1994, that the Copyright Act was altered to give certain rights to the performers.
India’s Copyright Act, 1957 has been essentially corrected. In May 2012, the two places of the Indian Parliament consistently put their seal on the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2012, carrying Indian copyright law into consistence with the World Intellectual Property Organization “Internet Treaties”.
Pioneers of the opposition in the two houses and agents from different gatherings gave vivacious help to the bill tabled by the administration.
The Copyright Act, 1957 had been altered multiple times preceding 2012, when each in the years 1983, 1984, 1992, 1994 and 1999, to meet with the national and universal necessities.
AMENDMENTS IN COPYRIGHT ACT
1994 Amendment
A ‘Performer’ shall mean and include an actor, singer, musician, dancer, acrobat, juggler, conjurer, snake charmer, a person delivering a lecture or any other person who makes a performance.
At first, the 1994 Act had settled these rights for a time of 25 years from the earliest starting point of the schedule year next after the year in which execution was made. Nonetheless, according to Article 14 of TRIPS Agreement, the term of assurance is for a long time figured from the finish of the logbook year in which the execution occurred. Along these lines, an ensuing correction came in Section 38 of the Copyright Act, 1957 by method for the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1999 to stretch out the period to 50 years that was beforehand 25 years.
The legitimate scene in India has demonstrated insufficient in securing the countless rights performers have in their exhibitions. Section 38 of the Act, as Performer’s Rights, gives selective right or specialist to the Performer for doing any demonstration in regard of the execution without preference to the rights gave on its creators. This arrangement empowers the entertainers for installment of eminences which are exposed to submitted use.
The 1994 Amendment has characterized the idea of performer’s right in following way:
Section 38 says that if any individual amid the duration of entertainer’s ideal without the assent of the entertainer does any of following acts in regard of the execution or a significant part thereof he will be considered to have encroached the entertainer’s rights:
- Reproduces a sound chronicle or visual account of the execution which was;
- Made without the assent of the performer;
- Made for the reasons not quite the same as those for which the performer has given his assent;
- Made for purposes not the same as those alluded to in sec 39 from sound chronicle or visual account which was made as per S. 39(acts not establishing encroachment);
- Broadcasts the execution aside from where the communicate is produced using a sound chronicle or visual account other than one made as per S. 39 or in rebroadcast by a similar telecom association of a prior communicate which did not encroach the performer’s correct; and
- Communicates the execution to the general population generally than by communicate with the exception of where such correspondence to people in general is produced using sound chronicle or a visual account or a communicate.
Section 38 of the Act also confers right on performers’ like actors, dancers, jugglers, acrobats etc. and this takes us to Performing Rights Society (PRS) which provides intermediary functions, particularly collection of royalties, between copyright holders and parties who wish to use copyrighted works publicly in locations such as shopping, dining venues, etc.
In a few nations, PRSs are called copyright cooperatives or copyright gathering organizations. A copyright aggregate is broader than a PRS as it isn’t constrained to exhibitions and incorporates Reproduction Rights Organizations (RROs). RROs speak to works dispersed by means of mediums, for example, CD, audiocassette, or PC record as opposed to the utilization of works in broad daylight settings.
In India, PRS is exemplified through the Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (IPRS), which was enlisted as a copyright society under Section 33 of Copyrights Act, 1957, however post correction of the said Act in 2012, the IPRS lost its enrollment. In spite of the fact that the IPRS had a chance to re-enroll as a copyright s society, it enlisted itself as an organization under the Companies Act, 1956.
2012 Amendment
The alterations presented through Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012 can be sorted into:
- Alterations to rights in imaginative works, cinematograph movies and sound chronicles.
- WCT and WPPT related amendment to rights
- Creator well-disposed changes on method of Assignment and Licenses
- Amendments facilitating Access to Works
- Strengthening enforcement and protecting against Internet piracy
- Change of Copyright Board and other minor corrections
In 2012, the Indian Copyright rule, i.e., The Copyright Act, 1957 (“The Act”), was altered to present extensive rights for performers. The Copyright Amendment Act, 2012, (“2012 Act”), gave creators of fundamental works utilized in cinematograph movies and sound accounts with natural appropriate to eminence in specific conditions, independent of the way that they had appointed the copyright in those attempts to the film maker or music writer.[7] The 2012 Act, likewise deliberated the entertainers with appropriate to get sovereignties if their exhibitions were being utilized for business purposes[8], despite the fact that he would have consented to join the execution in a cinematograph film. It was likewise guaranteed that the entertainer’s rights were in consonance with the global settlements, i.e., Article 14 of the TRIPS assertion just as Articles 5 to 10 of WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The artists, artists and different entertainers of the business, saw this correction as an appreciated move, as they were no more just vocal instruments.
The Honorable Delhi High Court in the matter of IPRS vs. Hello FM Radio[9], granted an injunction by restricting Hello FM Radio from playing music without obtaining a license from the Indian Performing Rights Limited (IPRS). IPRS is a non-profit making company authorized under Section 33 of the Copyright Act 1957 to operate as a copyright society for ‘musical works’ and ‘literary works’ performed along with the ‘musical works’. But this judgment dates back to 2012 which is prior to the amendment of the Act when IPRS was a registered as a Copyright Society
During that time Copyright laws have developed and post the revision of the Act in 2012, the IPRS had likewise lost its enrollment under Section 33 of Copyright Act (Registration of Copyright Society). The Bombay High Court in the matter of Leopold Café Stores v. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. held that “in order to qualify a master, it is vital for the administrator to reveal that it is speaking to and in light of a legitimate concern for the copyright proprietor in all the relevant records.” Further, the licenses would then have the capacity to be issued by IPRS only for the copyright holder, and not in their own one of a kind name. In such a situation, IPRS would likewise be restricted from starting any legitimate procedures if there should be an occurrence of unapproved utilization of sound chronicles and so forth on the grounds that the specialists of copyright holders can’t found lawful suits under segment 55 of the Copyright Act.
The meaning of a performance in Section 2(q) of the Copyright Act is: ‘performance’, in connection on performer’s right side, implies any visual or acoustic introduction made live by at least one performers. The words ‘made live’ are not characterized in the rule, and except if a ‘live execution’ is translated incredibly extensively, and the rule is deciphered purposively, it isn’t clear how it could apply to the recorded execution of an on-screen character in a film. In any case, the arrangements of the rule have been generally deciphered to imply that film on-screen characters are expected to have the capacity to profit by the performer’s correct, particularly in light of the revision to Section 2(qq) of the current Act which characterizes an performer. Thusly, there seems, by all accounts, to be a specialized illness in the copyright resolution seeing that requiring a recorded execution to be viewed as a live execution, in order to empower a film on-screen character to be considered to appreciate the performer’s great by the rule, is concerned.
The definition of a ‘performer’ in Section 2(qq) of the existing Act was amended by the 2012 Act. Under the existing Act, the Section contained an inclusive definition which stated that a performer ‘includes an actor, singer, musician, dancer, acrobat, juggler, conjurer, snake charmer, a person delivering an address or whatever other individual who makes an execution’. The 2012 Act changed this definition by affixing a Proviso to the Section which would debilitate those performers not referenced in a film’s credits (counting film ‘additional items’) from having the capacity to guarantee everything except one of the rights conceded to performers by the Act. This Proviso states:
‘Provided that in a cinematograph film a person whose performance is casual or incidental in nature and, in the normal course of practice of the industry, is not acknowledged anywhereinincorporating into the credits of the film, will not be treated as an entertainer with the exception of the reason for proviso (b) of section 38B.’
In Fortune films vs. Dev Anand[10], the court said that the copyright protection is available only to the film including the sound track, the cine artist who act in the film is not protected by copyright for their acting.
Section 38B is another arrangement in the Act which manages the ethical privileges of performers. This specific arrangement — Section 38B(b) of the Act — states that ‘the performer of an execution will, autonomously of his directly after task, either completely or incompletely of his rights, have the privilege to control or guarantee harms in regard of any twisting, mutilation or other alteration of his execution that would be biased to his notoriety’. The other right which an performer would have — under Section 38B(a) of the Act — is the privilege to profess to be recognized as the entertainer of his execution with the exception of where oversight is managed by the way of the utilization of the execution. This directly under the proposed Section 38B(a) clearly can’t have any significant bearing to additional items in movies as they are not credited by definition.
The two rights identified under the proposed Section 38B of the Act include the ‘Moral Rights’ expected to be concurred to performers, and are undifferentiated from the ‘Moral Rights’ which are agreed to the creators of works secured by copyright. It is relevant to take note of that the arrangement likewise contains a shield against maltreatment of good rights as an Explanation which would express that ‘the minor expulsion of any bit of an execution for the motivation behind altering, or to fit the account inside a constrained length, or some other alteration required for simply specialized reasons will not be esteemed to be biased to the performer’s notoriety’. This also is undifferentiated from the rights allowed to creators: the moral right of a creator would not be considered to have been violated merely because his work has, for example, not been displayed to his or her satisfaction.
What’s more, the arrangements with respect to the infringement of the ‘Performer’s Right’ have been essentially rebuilt in the Bill, and have been transposed to another Section: 38A of the Act. Area 38(3) of the Copyright Act before the coming into power of the 2012 revisions counted various acts the execution of which would have been an infringement of the performers correct. In this way, it was been drafted in proscriptive sense. Area 38A of the Act presently specifies acts like those recorded in Section 14 (which characterizes the ‘Importance of Copyright’) of the copyright resolution, however as opposed to expressing that performing them without assent would make one damage the performer’s correct, it expresses that these it is the selective right of the performer to perform or approve the execution of these demonstrations or any considerable part thereof. In that capacity, the new Section 38A in the Act might be viewed as prescriptive in nature.
At last, under Section 38A of the Act, the privileges of performers in movies have been significantly extended. Under the copyright resolution, when an entertainer agrees to the joining of his execution in a cinematograph film, no performer’s privilege would apply to that specific performance. The Act, notwithstanding, does not totally get rid of the performer’s correct. Right off the bat, it mulls over that the assent of an entertainer for the fuse of his execution in a cinematograph film would be in composing, and would not only be oral.
JUDICIAL APPROACH
The legal executive has additionally been proactive in implementing the performer’s rights. The Delhi High Court held that playing melodies in the eatery for two hours without getting the Clearance Certificate or without paying sovereignty comprised encroachment of the Copyright Law.[11] The Court additionally elucidated that any open execution of a melody, even at an open occasion that did not charge a cost of confirmation, needs a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the gathering society, and installment of sovereignties. [12]
Correspondingly, on account of Indian Singer’s Rights Association “ISRA” versus Night fever club and parlor[13], open execution of tunes of the individuals from the gathering society at the Defendant’s Club and Lounge, without the consent of the Plaintiff and without installment of eminences, was held to be unlawful and infringing upon Plaintiff’s Performers Rights. This case was unique in relation to the earlier case as recorded forms of the melody were being played rather than somebody playing out the tunes live. Along these lines, we can see that legal executive has additionally extended the extent of performer’s rights.
CONCLUSION
It might be said in end that, while some of what we have been talking about reflects impossible to miss nearby concerns, the fundamental concerns and issues influencing the assurance of copyright and neighboring rights are essentially the equivalent all over. With numerous different nations, India during the 1980s looked to address the issue presented by new innovations of simple duplicating (sound and video tapes). The altering Act of 1984 expelled any conceivable uncertainty concerning whether a video film was a ‘cinematograph film’ and made it necessary for specific points of interest to be shown on video tapes and sound accounts by the addition of areas 52A and 68A. Criminal punishments were improved and a few forces of seizure were presented on the police under sub-area (1) of segment 64. During the 1990s, conforming to TRIPS yet in addition advancing the interests of our own film industry specifically, rental rights were presented by the revising Act of 1994. Yet it has likewise been the experience that just reinforcing the law isn’t sufficient. Something has, presumably, been done to check copyright theft, yet we can’t sincerely say that it has been adequate. The fight to ensure copyright must be battled in the courts—and police headquarters—and stays substantially more essentially a matter of implementing the law that exists than of further enhancing and refining the law. The lawful scene in India has demonstrated lacking in securing the rights of performers have in their exhibitions. Today, quick innovative change, entomb associated excitement markets, and the quantum of unprotected old stories in India have made the requirement for this assurance increasingly up and coming. This article has contended, through a point by point examination of four existing performer right routines, that giving sui generis assurance is desirable over the options of ensuring performers’ rights through copyright and tort laws. While the modalities and subtleties in this plan warrant consultation, tolerating both requirement for change and arrangement of sui generis security, is the initial step forward towards giving performers in India their due. A more grounded and all the more widely inclusive performer assurance routine
[1]AnsgarFirsching, The Protection of Performers from a European Perspective with regard to the “Phil Collins” Case. Stockholm (1997), p. 7.
[2] Colleen Creamer Fielkow , Clashing Rights under United States Copyright Law: Harmonizing an Employer’s Economic Right with the Artist-Employees Moral Rights in a Work Made for Hire, DePaul-LCA Journal of Art and Entertainment Law, 7 DePaul-LCA J. Art &Ent. L. 218 (Spring 1997), as viewed from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/integrity/Links/Articles
[3] Paul Goldstein, International Intellectual Property Law: Cases and Materials, University Casebook Series, Foundation Press, New York (2001), p. 295.
[4] Michael Seadle, Copyright in the Networked World: Moral Rights, Library Hi- Tech, Volume 20, Number 1, pp. 124-127.
[5] Adler Bernard, The Proposed New WIPO Treaty for Increased Protection of Audiovisual Performers: Its Provisions and Its Domestic and International Implications, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 12 FDMIPMELJ 1089 (Spring 2002).
[6]The term “recording” and “record” in the Indian Copyright Act 1957 (Section 2 (w) & (x) denote only sound recording and sound record (“phonogram”) i.e. “aural fixing”. The term “fixation” is wider and includes recording of images and sound – audiovisual fixing.
[7]Section 18 and 19, Copyright Act 1957.
[8]Section 38A, the Copyright Act, 1957.
[9]The Bombay High Court in the matter of Leopold Café Stores v. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd.(Del) 50 PTC460 2012.
[10]Fortune films vs. Dev Anand; AIR Bom 17 1979.
[11] Indian Singer’s Rights Association v. Chapter 25 Bar and Restaurant, CS (OS) 2068/2015 & IA No. 14261/2015
[12] Ibid.
[13]Indian Singer’s Rights Association “ISRA” versus Night fever club and parlor CS (OS) No. 3958 of 2014.
