Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This rejection was due to the fact that even if the allegation was true, it was not a ground to get injunction for the infringement of copyright. Moreover, keeping in mind the real aim of the counter-drama, an injunction against it would be a restriction on the freedom of expression of the Defendant.
[7] [2] According to this Act, the period of copyright for photographs was 50 years from the time it was created (Act language is: "the term for which copyright shall subsist in photographs shall be fifty years from the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived, and the person who was owner of ...
Playing a radio broadcast of a copyrighted work at a business was not copyright infringement Radio reception does not constitute a "performance" of copyrighted material. Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop: 533 F.2d 87: 2d Cir. 1976 The essence of infringement lies in taking not a general theme but its particular expression Gilliam v.
OpenAI made its first India hire last year when it tapped former WhatsApp executive, Pragya Misra, to handle public policy and partnerships in the country of 1.4 billion people, where millions of ...
Contributory copyright infringement is a way of imposing secondary liability for infringement of a copyright. It is a means by which a person may be held liable for copyright infringement even though he or she did not directly engage in the infringing activity. [1] It is one of the two forms of secondary liability apart from vicarious liability ...
Penguin Books Ltd. v. India Book Distributors and Others, was a 1984 Delhi High Court court case. Penguin Books Ltd. of England brought a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents, India Book Distributors of New Delhi, to restrain them from infringing Penguin's territorial license in 23 books, the subject matter of the suit.
In 2012, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press (UK) and Taylor & Francis Group (UK), as well as Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd. and Taylor & Francis Books India Pvt. Ltd., [4] filed suit against Rameshwari Photocopy Service [3] and the University of Delhi alleging copyright infringement. [5]
RG Anand v. Delux Films, (AIR 1978 SC 1613) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in the area of copyright law. The case deals with a copyright infringement suit against the movie New Delhi made by Mohan Sehgal in 1954.