Copyright Disputes And Licensing Conflicts.
1. Understanding Copyright Disputes and Licensing Conflicts
Copyright protects original works of authorship, including:
Literary works (books, articles)
Artistic works (paintings, music, films)
Software and databases
Dramatic works and choreography
Copyright disputes arise when:
Someone copies or distributes a work without permission.
There is disagreement over ownership or authorship.
Licensing conflicts occur when:
A licensee exceeds the scope of permission granted by the copyright owner.
Licensing terms are unclear or breached.
2. Types of Copyright Disputes
Infringement – unauthorized use of copyrighted work.
Derivative Works Conflicts – creating works based on copyrighted material without consent.
Software Licensing Disputes – violation of software licenses (open-source or proprietary).
Contractual Licensing Disputes – conflicts over royalty payments, distribution rights, or territorial restrictions.
3. Landmark Cases on Copyright and Licensing Conflicts
Here are six important cases, explained in detail:
Case 1: Apple Computer Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. (1983, USA)
Facts:
Franklin copied Apple’s operating system (OS) software for its computers. Franklin argued that software cannot be copyrighted.
Issue:
Whether computer software is protected under copyright law.
Decision:
Court held that computer programs are literary works under copyright law.
Franklin was liable for copying Apple’s software.
Significance:
Established that software is copyrightable, not just patents.
Provided legal protection for software developers against unauthorized copying.
Case 2: University of London Press Ltd v. University Tutorial Press Ltd (1916, UK)
Facts:
A company copied examination questions and sold them as study guides.
Issue:
Whether exam questions can be copyrighted.
Decision:
Court ruled that original literary works include exam papers.
Copying without permission was infringement.
Significance:
Clarified that copyright protection extends beyond books to educational content.
Demonstrates early principles of copyright applied to non-traditional works.
Case 3: MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005, USA)
Facts:
Grokster provided software that allowed users to share copyrighted music files online. MGM sued for facilitating infringement.
Issue:
Whether software developers can be held liable for user infringement.
Decision:
Court held Grokster liable for inducing copyright infringement, even if they did not directly copy the works.
Liability arises if the service is intended for infringing purposes.
Significance:
Important precedent for secondary liability in copyright law.
Influenced online platforms and peer-to-peer file sharing regulation.
Case 4: Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions (2016, USA)
Facts:
Axanar Productions, a fan group, made a Star Trek fan film. Paramount alleged copyright infringement for using Star Trek’s characters and universe without a license.
Issue:
Whether fan-made derivative works violate copyright law.
Decision:
Court ruled that Axanar infringed copyright, as they exceeded fair use limits.
Axanar had to cease distribution and make significant modifications.
Significance:
Highlights the limits of fan productions and derivative works.
Emphasizes the importance of licensing even for non-commercial projects.
Case 5: R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978, India)
Facts:
R.G. Anand claimed that the film “New Delhi” copied the story of his play “Hum Hindustani” without permission.
Issue:
Whether the film infringed copyright by adapting the play.
Decision:
Supreme Court of India held that copyright protects expression, not ideas.
Only substantial reproduction of the original work’s expression is infringement.
Film was found to have borrowed only ideas, not expression—no infringement.
Significance:
Fundamental principle: ideas are free, expression is protected.
Key case for Indian copyright jurisprudence.
Case 6: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC (2016-2021, USA)
Facts:
Google used Java APIs in Android without Oracle’s license. Oracle sued for copyright infringement and sought damages.
Issue:
Whether APIs (software interfaces) are copyrightable and whether Google’s use was fair.
Decision:
After years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that Google’s use of Java APIs constituted fair use.
Google was allowed to use the APIs for software development.
Significance:
Clarified copyright applicability to APIs.
Emphasized fair use doctrine in software and technological innovation.
Case 7: Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005, India)
Facts:
A sculptor claimed that his work was used in public spaces without credit or compensation.
Issue:
Whether moral rights of an artist are violated when works are reproduced or displayed.
Decision:
Court emphasized moral rights under Indian Copyright Act.
Reproduction without permission, even by the government, can infringe rights.
Significance:
Protects integrity and attribution of authors and artists.
Important for licensing conflicts in public installations.
4. Key Takeaways
Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
Licensing agreements must clearly define: scope, duration, territory, and royalties.
Software and digital content have unique copyright considerations.
Secondary liability applies to platforms or intermediaries enabling infringement.
Fair use, fan works, and derivative works have nuanced limitations.
RELATED Blog
comments