Abbreviation | IRRO |
---|---|
Formation | 2000 |
Type | Society |
Purpose | The rights of Authors and Publishers of literary works |
Headquarters | New Delhi, India |
Location |
|
Website | https://www.irro.org.in/ |
This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations .(May 2019) |
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.
IRRO represents the rights of publishers in the Indian copyright ecosystem. The organization has strong global affiliations with the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO) and other international RROs. Being a member of IFRRO, the organization operates in accordance with internationally accepted standards of supervising reproduction rights of copyright.
Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation (IRRO) is a copyright society incorporated in 2000 and authorized by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. It stands for the rights of authors and publishers and regulates the use and reproduction of their literary works. Over the years, IRRO has become a privileged partner of the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisation (IFRRO) and made strong connections with other countries’ RROs.
IRRO issues licenses of copyrighted materials for reproduction by photocopying, scanning, etc. on behalf of rights holders. The materials may include magazines, books, and journals supplied by a licensed third party. The licenses eliminate the risk associated with the reproduction of such materials. For the most part, IRRO works on providing reprographic access to users like institutes, photocopy shops, and universities, and providing equitable remuneration to rights holders.
IRRO’s policies and awareness propaganda have increased the respect for copyrights among governments, users and right holders throughout India.
Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case On 9 March 2017, newspapers including Hindustan Times reported that the three publishers announced to withdraw suit against Rameshwari Photocopy service shop and not to pursue photocopy shop case further in the courts. According to a news report of The Hindu, the publishers had told the division Bench that they had decided to withdraw the suit against Rameshwari Photocopy shop as they did not want to engage in a legal battle with their stakeholders — the educational institutions. Despite the main plaintiff withdrew the case, Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation (IRRO), made an attempt to move a petition in Supreme Court challenging the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 9 December 2016. Given that the original suit filed before the Delhi high court had been withdrawn by the publisher plaintiffs (OUP etc.) and the IRRO was merely an intervenor in the lower court proceedings, Supreme Court decided to not to interfere in the High court order.
On 3 June 2017, The Financial Times also covered an extensive story on the case illustrating data from Nielsen that despite lack of public numbers, the publishers still made considerable profitable growth in India.
Copyright is a type of intellectual property that allows the creator to own their original work in a way as something physical is owned. It refers to the right of the owner to prevent others from copying, reusing or reproducing their work. In simpler terms, copyright is a legal means of protecting a creator’s (author, musician, filmmaker, etc.) work.
Creators spend a lot of time in producing original work. They initially produce it for free, but as their artwork is used or sold, they’re bound to receive a payment. However, such a payment is only compensated if the creator has registered for copyrights. If a creator fails to copyright its work, anyone can copy it and/or falsely claim to own it. To avoid this from happening, various copyright societies like IRRO were formed to help writers, musicians and other artists copyright their creative work. The legislation responsible for regulating copyright in India is the Copyright Act 1957 (as amended by the Copyright Amendment Act 2012) and the Copyright Rules, 2013.
A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive legal 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 and fair dealings doctrine in the United Kingdom.
The copyright law of the European Union is the copyright law applicable within the European Union. Copyright law is largely harmonized in the Union, although country to country differences exist. The body of law was implemented in the EU through a number of directives, which the member states need to enact into their national law. The main copyright directives are the Copyright Term Directive 2006, the Information Society Directive and the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Copyright in the Union is furthermore dependent on international conventions to which the European Union or their member states are part of, such as TRIPS Agreement or the Berne Convention.
A copyright collective is a non-governmental body created by copyright law or private agreement which licenses copyrighted works on behalf of the authors and engages in collective rights management. Copyright societies track all the events and venues where copyrighted works are used and ensure that the copyright holders listed with the society are remunerated for such usage. The copyright society publishes its own tariff scheme on its websites and collects a nominal administrative fee on every transaction.
A performance rights organisation (PRO), also known as a performing rights society, provides intermediary functions, particularly collection of royalties, between copyright holders and parties who wish to use copyrighted works publicly in locations such as shopping and dining venues. Legal consumer purchase of works, such as buying CDs from a music store, confer private performance rights. PROs usually only collect royalties when use of a work is incidental to an organisation's purpose. Royalties for works essential to an organisation's purpose, such as theaters and radio, are usually negotiated directly with the rights holder. The interest of the organisations varies: many have the sole focus of musical works, while others may also encompass works and authors for audiovisual, drama, literature, or the visual arts.
Originality is the aspect of created or invented works that distinguish them from reproductions, clones, forgeries, or substantially derivative works. The modern idea of originality is according to some scholars tied to Romanticism, by a notion that is often called romantic originality. The validity of "originality" as an operational concept has been questioned. For example, there is no clear boundary between "derivative" and "inspired by" or "in the tradition of."
Théberge v Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc[2002] 2 S.C.R. 336, 2002 SCC 34 is one of the Supreme Court of Canada's leading cases on copyright law. This case interprets the meaning of "reproduction" within the Copyright Act of Canada, and touches on the moral rights to copyrighted material and how much control an author has over his work once it is in the hands of a third party.
CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 SCR 339, 2004 SCC 13, is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada case that established the threshold of originality and the bounds of fair dealing in Canadian copyright law. A group of publishers sued the Law Society of Upper Canada for copyright infringement for providing photocopy services to researchers. The Court unanimously held that the Law Society's practice fell within the bounds of fair dealing.
A copyright is the legal protection extended to the owner of the rights in an original work. Original work refers to every production in the literary, scientific, and artistic domains. The Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL) is the leading agency responsible for handling the registration and conflict resolution of intellectual property rights and to enforce the copyright laws. IPOPHL was created by virtue of Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines which took effect on January 1, 1998, under the presidency of Fidel V. Ramos.
Copyright in the Netherlands is governed by the Dutch Copyright Law, copyright is the exclusive right of the author of a work of literature or artistic work to publish and copy such work.
The droit d'auteur or French authors' rights law, is in the jurisdiction of France a set of exclusive prerogatives available to a creator over his or her intellectual work, as part of the intellectual property area of law. It has been very influential in the development of authors' rights laws in other civil law jurisdictions, and in the development of international authors' rights law such as the Berne Convention. It has its roots in the 16th century, before the legal concept of copyright was developed in the United Kingdom. Based on the "rights of the author" instead of on the right to copy, its philosophy and terminology are different from those used in copyright law in common law jurisdictions. The term droit d’auteur reveals that the interests of the author are at the center of the system, not that of the investor.
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.
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.
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.
Collective rights management is the licensing of copyright and related rights by organisations acting on behalf of rights owners. Collective management organisations (CMOs), sometimes also referred to as collecting societies, typically represent groups of copyright and related rights owners, i.e.; authors, performers, publishers, phonogram producers, film producers and other rights holders. At the least, rights holders authorize collective rights management organizations to monitor the use of their works, negotiate licenses with prospective users, document correct right management data and information, collect remuneration for use of copyrighted works, ensuring a fair distribution of such remuneration amongst rightsholders. CMOs also act on legal mandates. Governmental supervision varies across jurisdictions.
The Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) is a UK non-profit organisation established in 1983 to perform collective licensing on behalf of its members the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS), Publishers' Licensing Services(PLS), the Design and Artists Collecting Society (DACS) and PICSEL. The Copyright Licensing Agency is based in 35 Ballards Lane, London, N3 1XW.
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.
Entertainment Software Ass'n v Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 SCC 34, is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada judgement that clarified the nature of and relationship between, the bundle of rights created for copyright owners under section 3(1) of the Copyright Act of Canada. In particular, the Supreme Court considered the relationship between the reproduction and communication rights under the Copyright Act, and applied the principle of technological neutrality to hold that downloading a work engaged only the reproduction right, and not the communication right.
The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford and Others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services and Others, colloquially known as the DU Photocopy Case, was an Indian copyright law court case in the Delhi High Court filed by academic publishers Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor & Francis, against Rameshwari Photocopy Services and the University of Delhi, the former being a shop licensed to operate within the precincts of the Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi. The plaintiffs alleged copyright infringement and sought a permanent injunction, and the defendants successfully argued that their actions fell within the bounds of fair dealing.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [ circular reference ] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]