| Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Delhi High Court |
| Decided | 21 February 2005 |
| Citation(s) | 2005 (30) PTC 253 (Del) |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Justice P Nandrajog |
| Keywords | |
| moral rights in copyright | |
Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India [1] is a landmark Indian case decided by the Delhi High Court, which for the first time upheld the moral right of an author under the Indian Copyright Act and awarded damages. The government was also asked to return his mural. [2] [3]
The plaintiff, Amar Nath Sehgal is a renowned artist and sculptor, who created a mural in the lobby of Vigyan Bhawan, Delhi on the direction of appropriate authority. In the year 1957, the Government of India commissioned Mr. Sehgal for creating a bronze mural for Vigyan Bhavan, the most prominent International Convention Hall in Delhi. The Bronze sculpture so commissioned, of about 140 ft. span and 40 ft. sweep took five years to complete and was placed on the wall of the Lobby in the Convention hall. This embellishment on a national architecture became a part of the Indian art heritage. However, in 1979, the mural was pulled down and consigned to the store room of the Union without notice or permission or authorization of Amarnath. When Mr. Sehgal came to know of this ill treatment, he made representations to the government authorities for restoration of the mural, to no avail. As this act of destruction of the mural as it was improperly handled which cause minor damage to the sculpture. He filed a petition under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 in the Delhi High Court praying for an apology from the defendants, a permanent injunction on the defendants to restrain them from distorting, mutilating or damaging the plaintiff's mural and damages to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs.
The Court termed the Moral rights as the soul of the author's works. "The author has a right to preserve, protect and nurture his creations through his moral rights. A creative individual is uniquely invested with the power and mystique of original genius, creating a privileged relationship between a creative author and his work."
The Court elucidated on the moral rights that flow from art and literary work. They are identification right or attribution right, right to dissemination, Right to integrity that is to maintain the purity of work and right to withdraw from the publication of the work. The language of the Section 57 makes it possible to legally protect the cultural heritage of India through the moral rights of the artist. "Intellectual property and knowledge are interconnected. Intellectual property embodies traditional thought and knowledge with value addition. Thus, physical destruction or loss of intellectual property has far reaching social consequence. Knowledge which has grown with it is also lost." Court ruled that moral rights in the work of art acquire the status of the cultural heritage of the nation and India being a signatory to many conventions, it would be the obligation of the state to protect such work.
Further, Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 includes destruction of a work of art as a ground as it is the extreme form of mutilation and reduces the volume of the author's creative corpus and affects his reputation prejudicially as being actionable under said section. Further, in relation to the work of an author, subject to the work attaining the status of a modern national treasure, the right would include an action to protect the integrity of the work in relation to the cultural heritage of the nation.
The Court held that the plaintiff has a cause to maintain an action under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 even though the copyright in the mural stands vested in the defendants. It was further held that the defendants have not only violated the plaintiff's moral right of integrity in the mural but have also violated the integrity of the work in relation to the cultural heritage of the nation. The Court ordered the defendants to return to the plaintiff the remnants of the mural permanently with no rights vesting with the defendants henceforth and ordered the defendants to pay damages with costs.
The decision taken by the single bench of the Delhi High Court was instrumental in determining the course of moral rights in the country. It also gave a broad construction to the term moral rights in the country, by not only providing for the right of the author in the case of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the work if such distortion etc. would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation but also ‘right of the author to receive the copyrighted work for the purposes of restoration and sell it’. It included within the moral right of integrity the right to protect an artistic work from outright destruction. The interim decision in the case, given by Justice Jaspal Singh, given in favour of the plaintiff, restricted the Indian Government from causing any further loss to the plaintiff by destroying the property. The interim ruling, given in 1992, established two central points about the ambit of moral rights within India. Firstly, that the moral right of integrity under Indian Law can in fact protect an artistic work from outright destruction and secondly, that the Government has a duty of care towards artworks in its possession. This gave rise to amendments in the Copyright Act in 1994. Even though the purported primary motive of the Government was to bring the Indian Act in conformity with the Berne Convention, the wording of the amendment seemed to be a direct reaction to the interim ruling. Under the amended Section 57, a legal claim by an author against unauthorized modifications to his work had to establish that the treatment of the work has been prejudicial to his honour or reputation. The revised Section 57 corresponded to Article 6bis of the Berne Convention and also provided that failure to display a work, or to display it in accordance with the wishes of the author, would not qualify as a violation of the author's moral rights.
In light of this amendment in 1994, an important question that Justice Nandrajog needed to address was that of which law would be applicable to the final ruling, the pre amendment or post amendment Copyright Act. There were compelling arguments for both the sides, as the old provisions of the Copyright Act would apply because they governed the time when the acts of destruction occurred, and when the case was actually filed before the court. On the other hand, he could have said that the post amended provisions should apply because they reflected the currently policy of the Govt. and were actually in force at the time of the judgment. However, he sidestepped the question and chose neither of the paths, arguing that the law must be read to fulfil the higher objective of protecting our cultural heritage, in light of the many international treaties on cultural heritage that India is a signatory to. The artwork in question constituted an ‘outstanding work of art’ and in such cases there is an overriding obligation to protect their integrity, no matter which law is applied.
A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives the creator of an original work, or another right holder, the exclusive and legally secured right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time. The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. A copyright is subject to limitations based on public interest considerations, such as the fair use doctrine in the United States.
Moral rights are rights of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions.
The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA),, is a United States law granting certain rights to artists.
The Copyright Act 1957 as amended governs the subject of copyright law in India. The Act is applicable from 21 January 1958. The history of copyright law in India can be traced back to its colonial era under the British Empire. The Copyright Act 1957 was the first post-independence copyright legislation in India and the law has been amended six times since 1957. The most recent amendment was in the year 2012, through the Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012.
Performing rights are the right to perform music in public. It is part of copyright law and demands payment to the music's composer/lyricist and publisher. Performances are considered "public" if they take place in a public place and the audience is outside of a normal circle of friends and family, including concerts nightclubs, restaurants etc. Public performance also includes broadcast and cable television, radio, and any other transmitted performance of a live song.
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, also known as the CDPA, is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received royal assent on 15 November 1988. It reformulates almost completely the statutory basis of copyright law in the United Kingdom, which had, until then, been governed by the Copyright Act 1956 (c. 74). It also creates an unregistered design right, and contains a number of modifications to the law of the United Kingdom on Registered Designs and patents.
In copyright law, related rights are the rights of a creative work not connected with the work's actual author. It is used in opposition to the term "authors' rights". Neighbouring rights is a more literal translation of the original French droits voisins. Both authors' rights and related rights are copyrights in the sense of English or U.S. law.
Japanese copyright laws consist of two parts: "Author's Rights" and "Neighbouring Rights". As such, "copyright" is a convenient collective term rather than a single concept in Japan. Japan was a party to the original Berne convention in 1899, so its copyright law is in sync with most international regulations. The 1899 law protected copyrighted works for 30 years after the author's death. Law changes promulgated in 1970 extended the duration to 50 years. However, in 2004 Japan further extended the copyright term to 70 years for cinematographic works; for films released before 1971, the copyright term also spans 38 years after the director's death.
The copyright law of Australia defines the legally enforceable rights of creators of creative and artistic works under Australian law. The scope of copyright in Australia is defined in the Copyright Act 1968, which applies the national law throughout Australia. Designs may be covered by the Copyright Act as well as by the Design Act. Since 2007, performers have moral rights in recordings of their work.
Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. Fair dealing is found in many of the common law jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations.
The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1929, are in the public domain.
The copyright law of New Zealand is covered by the Copyright Act 1994 and subsequent amendments. It is administered by Business Law Policy Unit of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). In June 2017, a review of the existing legislation was announced.
Moral rights in Canadian copyright law are protected under the Copyright Act of Canada and include an author's right to attribution, integrity and association of a work. Moral rights are to be distinguished from economic rights; moral rights essentially being derived from the reflection of the author's personality in his or her work, whereas economic rights grant an author the ability to benefit economically from their work. An author of a work retains moral rights for the length of the copyright, even if the copyright has been assigned or licensed to another party. Moral rights cannot be assigned or licensed, but can be waived by contract.
Provisions related to Italian copyright law are found in Law no. 633 of 22 April 1941. Certain fundamental provisions are also found in the Italian Civil Code of 1942, Arts. 2575–2583.
Amar Nath Sehgal was a noted Indian modernist sculptor, painter, poet and art educator. He started his career as an engineer in Lahore, and later turned to art. He shifted to Delhi after partition of India in 1947, and in 1950 studied art education from New York University School of Education. Subsequently, became an art educator, teaching at College of Art, Delhi, and in time a noted modern sculptor to his generation. Though he also ventured into painting, drawings and poetry.
The basic legal instrument governing copyright law in Sri Lanka is Part II of the Intellectual Property Act, No. 36 of 2003 replacing Part II of the Code of Intellectual Property Act, No. 52 of 1979.
RG Anand v. Delux Films, 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. The plaintiff R.G. Anand, contended that it was modeled on the plot of a play Hum Hindustani written and produced by him. The judgment is remarkable for clarifying the concepts of idea-expression dichotomy and copyright infringement under the Indian copyright law.
Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Motion Pictures Ltd is a landmark case in the area of Indian copyright law. It is the first decision from the Indian higher judiciary that clarified the scope and ambit of moral rights under the Indian copyright law.
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.
Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation (IRRO) is a copyright society established under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Its main objective is to ensure that the copyrights of authors are protected and that copyright owners are respected and rewarded when their original works are used and reproduced. The guidelines of regulating copyrights by IRRO are curated in a fair way that rewards the authors, creators, and publishers and allows easy reproduction of their works and publications. The organization deploys the highest ethical standards when it comes to dealing with the rights of authors, collecting and distributing remunerations, and the bonafide funds they hold.