Fresh Amendments to the Copyright Rules: Are these enough?

A new amendment in the copyright rules has been in the works since 2019. The Department of Industry and Internal Trade had proposed the rules with the aim of increasing efficiency in the procedural law. The last amendment happened in 2016 when “services” were brought under the purview of the copyright act. However, as technology is evolving at an exponential rate, a new amendment to ensure that the copyright law is in tandem with the evolving trends was long due. In this article, the author analyses the amendments made to the copyright rules and tries to identify what concerns still need attention, perhaps via an amendment in the Copyright Act.

Important Amendments in a Move Towards Digitization

Fresh Amendments to the Copyright RulesThe new rules seek to switch to the digital mode as it brings in new procedural requirements which promote digital handling of publication and payment procedures. The publication of copyrights no longer needs to be done be in the Official Gazette rather the rules state that a Copyright Journal shall be maintained for publication of copyrights. Furthermore, like the Trademarks Registry available online, the Copyrights Journal could be found on the Copyrights website.

Certain provisions have been added to improve the handling of payment of royalties by the Copyright society. The electronic payment mechanisms, which are supposed to be created should also be able to trace when then payments have been made. In cases where the authors or owners cannot be identified, such royalties have to be deposited separately by the Copyrights society. If such royalties have not been paid to the authors due to lack of identification for 3 years since the day on which they accrued, the amount is to be used for the welfare of Copyrights society. Furthermore, to increase accountability, the corporate society shall now have to maintain Annual transparency reports under rule 65A which would account for the activities undertaken by the society such as refusal in granting of licenses, royalties assessed, collected, distributed, etc.

An amendment has been made in Rule 70, which brings relief to copyright owners for computer programs as the previous requirement of submitting the entire source code, has been relaxed now. Such Copyright owners now have to submit only the first 10 pages and last 10 pages of the code or in cases where the code is less than 20 pages entire code has to be submitted.

Lastly, as stipulated in the Finance Act, 2017, the powers of the Copyright Board have been transferred to the Appellate Board, However, it is important to note here that the President has also promulgated the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021, which has abolished the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and given its powers to the Commercial Courts and High Courts. Therefore, the amendment in copyright rules is to be read with the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance to give effect to the transfer of powers.

Unaddressed concerns

While it is clear that the government has made its move to bring transparency and efficiency in the functioning, there are still concerns that have not been addressed. The Amendments brought with respect to the Copyright Journal and Electronic Payments are necessary but a little late in the game. Technology is advancing at an exponential rate but the law seems to be lagging behind. Modern technology like Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining thrust and evolving as the day goes by. The technology behind AI has developed to an extent where it can produce its own content without much interference from humans. The Indian Copyright Act as of now only gives rights to works of authors or owners who are natural persons, therefore, a provision needs to be made for including the AI under its scope.

Another concern that has been of relevance to late is statutory licensing for internet streaming services. Currently, the statute does not include any provision which caters to the licensing required by internet streaming services. There was some scope of obtaining the license as a “broadcasting organization” but such route has been shut down by the Bombay High Court in the case of Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Music Ltd. While the draft rules in 2019 did touch upon this issue no changes have materialized in the current amendment.

It is pertinent to note, however, that a change of such broad nature cannot be given effect solely by amending the rules unless the Copyright Act itself stands amended. At this point, it seems that another wave of changes is required, which would begin with the Act and then trickle down to corresponding rules.

Conclusion

As anticipated, the rules focus mainly on increasing transparency and efficient management, but inarguably there is still a need for substantial changes which bring the laws in coordination with the technological advancements. However, it seems that these changes in rules can be brought only when corresponding changes have been made in the Copyright Act.

Author: Nayanika Gupta a 3rd-year student of BA.LLB.(Hons) of National Law Institute University (Bhopal) intern at Khurana And Khurana, IP Attorney and Advocates. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at aishani@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010