Experts throw light on IPR and copyright issues
Mumbai, 14 March 2014: Should the intellectual property or
creative content be barred from widespread dissemination to protect the hard
work of producers, or should it be freely spread around the world in a global
economic era that often doesn’t have boundaries? These and similar questions
were discussed at a panel discussion on “Intellectual Property, Piracy and the
Creative Industries” on the third and final day of the FICCI FRAMES convention
being held here.
The
session, anchored by Mr Vishnu Som, Editor and Senior Anchor, NDTV, highlighted
issues around intellectual property and the dynamics of its ownership in an
industry that is rapidly becoming characterised by multiple content
distributors over multiple delivery platforms.
Present on
the panel was Dr G Raghavender, Registrar of Copyrights, Government of India.
He spoke about the Copyright Amendment Act, 2012. The amendments were designed
to extend copyright protection to the digital environment in harmony with the
World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and the WIPO
Phonograms Treaty, 1996. The bill introduced exclusive economic rights for
performance, and, for the first time, moral rights for performers.
But Mr
Deepak Jacob, President and General Counsel, Star India, differed in his view
about the bill. He said that it had a fundamental problem: Of the five key
stakeholders that come under copyright, viz. the print , film, television,
radio and animation and gaming sectors, not a single one was consulted when these
amendments were proposed. They were proposed at the behest of certain vested
interests, primarily authors of literary and musical works, and certain
performers. The amendments have actually created an impasse in the film and
television industry, where authors have become trade unions holding film and
television producers and content creators to ransom by demanding exorbitant
royalties.
Mr Ameet
Datta, Partner, Saikrishna & Associates, felt that the statutory requirement
that when government evolves policy, it will focus on multiple stakeholders, is
a positive development. Yet, there was bound to be friction between the
expanding numbers of stakeholders and levels of dissemination; he suggested
that involuntary licensing could provide industry with seamless access to
works. He also flagged up the issue
about the biggest brands being advertised on pirate websites.
“The dumber
you act, the less responsibility you will have,” is what the law is suggesting,
said Mr Nandan Kamath of Copyright Integrity International. The laws need to
take responsibility for content on networks. He felt that the issue of digital
piracy is not just legal but has ripple effects into the monetisation of
content. Piracy itself is not well defined, and has lots of grey areas.
Ms Annie
Luo, Director, Media, Entertainment and Information Industries, World Economic
Forum, discussed about her work on intellectual property in the digital
context, that identified cultural differences as an element affecting how
people related to the digital media.
Mr Benoit
Ginisty, Director General, FIAPF, felt that it was important for producers to
enjoy full contractual freedom to produce films and robust operate in a high
risk financial environment.
Questions
from the audience revolved around who in a team would be the “owner” of a
script, how young people could be educated about piracy, and when permissions
were needed to use content.
