RESEARCH SYNOPSIS

ON

PROTECTION OF MULTIMEDIA WORKS UNDER

COPYRIGHT REGIME

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT

SUBMITTED BY - SUBMITTED TO -
Rakesh Kumar Sahoo Mr. M R S Murthy,
Semester VI, Section B, Professor,
Roll No. 342. Intellectual Property
Right

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW, RANCHI

2016
INTRODUCTION

Copyright are a set of exclusive rights granted by law to the creators and producers of forms
of creative expressions such as literary, artistic, musical and cinematographic works. These
rights bestow on the copyright owner the control over the use of his works like their
reproduction and distribution for a limited duration. While the concept of copyright is very
ancient the laws granting these rights are of comparatively recent origin. Copyright was
formulated as a means of protecting creators’ rights to many uses of their original protected
works, including reproduction, dissemination, display and – probably most important –
receiving profit from that work. With the advent of multimedia, especially the Internet and
digital technology, there have been many changes in the laws governing this basic right.

Excluding its container, a multimedia work combines authorship in two or more media. A
multimedia work is often instructional. The authorship may include:

• Text
• Photography
• Artwork
• sounds
• Sculpture
• Music
• Cinematography
• Choreography

The media may include two or more of the following:

• Printed matter, such as a book, charts or posters, or sheet music

• Audio-visual material, such as a filmstrip, slides, videotape, or videodisc
• A phonorecord, such as an audio-disc or audiotape or
• A machine-readable copy, such as a computer-read disc, tape, or chip

A multimedia work may have several copyrightable elements, usually including a motion-
picture element or other audio-visual element, or a sound recording element. For the purpose
of copyright registration, it is important to identify the separate copyrightable elements
contained in the multimedia work.
Identifying the elements helps to determine which application form to use and what type of
material to deposit. An audio-visual element consists of a series of related pictorial images
intended to be shown by the use of projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment. This element
may be a filmstrip, slides, a film, a videotape, a videodisc, or a CD-I (interactive compact
disc). A motion-picture element is an audio-visual element that consists of a series of related
images that, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion. This element may
be in the form of film, videotape, videodisk, or a CD-I. A sound-recording element is a series
of recorded sounds. Sounds accompanying an audio-visual or motion picture element are not
defined in the copyright law as a “sound recording” and so on.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Seth Karnika (2013), in the view of the author the correct interpretation is that multimedia
work is indeed a combination of separate works in which different copyrights vest in
author(s). That it cannot in all cases be treated as one work which is only a computer
programme itself as certain academicians hold.

Circular 55 (reviewed: 10 ⁄ 2013), this article gives the complete detail about what
multimedia work is, and what are the various procedure for getting such a work registered. It
gives a detail insight of how to apply for registration of work, the necessary requirements,
and difference in procedure for work containing various elements to be copyrighted.

James T.C. (2002), this paper traces the history of Indian Copyright Act, describes various
amendments carried out in it from time to time. Responses of international community to the
challenges of digital technologies in the form of WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO
Performers and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) are presented. The prominent copyright issues in
the digital era are identified. The author finds that in the Indian Copyright Act many issues
are still left unaddressed.

Dr. Dreier Thomas, The author views copyright law as an essential instrument of cultural
and economic control in the digital environment, an instrument, however, which requires
precise tuning in order to contend with the changing technological possibilities of exploiting
protected works. It is important to obtain clear guidelines not only at a national level; the
participating circles are called upon to work towards achieving a global harmonization of
copyright law.
Stamatoudi Irini A. (2002), ‘Multimedia’ is a newly evolved term, which brings with it the
imponderables every newly evolved term brings: vagueness and uncertainty. Multimedia
products have introduced new forms of expression by combining the existing ones with new
technologies, thus creating a new concept. According to the author, the possession of
information is the key to the successful creation and marketing of a multimedia product. The
information contained in it is the crucial factor when consumers decide to purchase.

Jones J. Ruby, the author in this article deals with multimedia and its protection with special
focus to the Fair use doctrine. Fair use doctrine as given in Section 107 of the US Copyright
Act, 1976, a piece of copyrighted work can be utilised for reproduction or any other means, if
it is being used for any means such as criticism, comments, news reporting, education
purposes, teaching etc. then it is not infringement of copyright.

One of the most cited lawsuits worldwide for digital copyright infringements is of the A&M
Records Inc. v. Napster Inc.1, whereby the plaintiff was sued by the defendants, for P2P file
sharing. In this case, Napster provided software, whereby the user can share media files (MP3
Files) stored in his computer to other user of Napster. Since the filing of the Napster Inc.
case, the music companies have been seeking USD 1, 00,000 for each copyright-protected
song downloaded using Napster. There was a settlement between the parties, whereby
Napster had to give a third of all future profits to the settling parties, and Napster Inc. was
shut down in 2000.

In Sega Enterprises v. Maphia2, the plaintiff manufactured video games which could only be
played on game consoles manufactured by plaintiff. The defendant managed a BBS that
enabled users to upload Sega games to his BBS which others could then download. The court
took the view that defendant infringed plaintiff’s copyright as it caused or materially
contributed to the infringement.

In Kelly v. Arriba SoftCorp3, Leslie Kelly’s copyrighted pictures were displayed by a search

engine that not only produced thumbnails but also large size pictures in its search results.
This was held by the court to be an unauthorized reproduction of plaintiff’s pictures that
directly infringed copyright of the plaintiff. While creating only thumbnails could be justified

1
2000 WL 573136, I (N.D. cal 2000)
2
857 F Supp. 679 (N.D Cal 1994)
3
280 F 3d 934 (9th Cir 2002)
as fair use, but downloading from search engine result full size image amounted to an
infringement.

In a recent Indian case, Gramaphone Company of India v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd4,

the court took the view that plaintiff had infringed the copyright of plaintiff in sound
recordings, wherein a remix version of a song was being sold by defendant on the internet or
as mobile tune .The court observed that right of a copyright holder in a recording version to
sell, give on hire or offer for sale or hire to public or distribute is not curtailed by the format
in which it may be sold online.

In Microsoft Corporation v. Yogesh Popat5, the Delhi High Court dealt with a copyright
infringement case and awarded compensation of Rs.23.62 lakhs to Microsoft Corporation
against M/s Compton Computers Private ltd and its directors for uploading pirated software
of Microsoft in computers the company sold after assembling parts.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

 To find out whether multimedia work are protected under Copyright Act, 1957.
 To understand the issues regarding the copyright of multimedia work in India.
 To study the role of copyright act over the creation of multimedia work like computer
programs & other audio-visual films with respect to adaptation, originality and
creativity.
 To find out who possess the authorship/ownership rights in such multimedia works?

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

 Multimedia work is protected under Copyright Act, 1957.

 Multimedia work is a mixture of various copyright subject matter, hence issue arises
in identifying the subject matter to be protected.
 Multimedia Work is a creation and shall therefore come under original work.
 Different copyright subject matter shall possess different ownership rights in the
creation.

4
2010 (44) PTC 541
5
2005 (118) DLT 580, followed in Adobe Systems Inc. v K.Khanna 2009 (5) AS ( Delhi) 954)
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research project will be utilizing doctrinal research methodology, by means of secondary
sources such as books, journals, articles and case laws. The researcher has used descriptive
and explanatory research tool to elaborate the basic concepts in regard to the research topic.

SCOPE & LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The scope of the research project is to visualize the main issue i.e whether the creation of
multimedia work leads to a creation of new work or is it mere copying of the various original
subject matter like cinematograph film, sound recording, etc. especially in India. The
controversies in regard to it will also be covered in this research project.

The lack of availability of recent articles related to this aspect, and the non- availability of
recent case laws put a limitation on the research project.

SCHEME OF THE STUDY

1. Introduction.
2. Review of Literature.
3. Objectives of study.
4. Protection to Multimedia Work in India
5. Multimedia Work under Copyright Act - Trends
6. Multimedia Work – Original or Duplicate?
7. Ownership Rights in Multimedia Work.
8. Conclusion.
9. References.

REFERENCES

 http://www.eff.org/CAF/law/multimedia-handbook - “An Intellectual Property Law

Primer for Multimedia and Web Developers” (1996)
 Seth Karnika, (Feb 2013), Protecting copyright in the cyberspace.
 U.S. Copyright Office · Library of Congress · 101 Independence Avenue SE ·
Washington, DC 20559 · www.copyright.gov
 Circular 55 reviewed: 10 ⁄ 2013 Printed on recycled paper U.S. Government Printing
Office: 2013-xxx-xxx ⁄ xx,xxx
 James T.C., (July 2002), Indian Copyright Law and Digital Technologies, Journal of
Intellectual Property Rights, Vol 7, Spetember 2002, pp 423-435.