Open Access Research Article
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT BY: SAHIL SHYAM SHARMA
Published Paper
Article Details
INFRINGEMENT
OF COPYRIGHT
AUTHORED BY:
SAHIL SHYAM SHARMA
INSTITUTION:
ALLIANCE UNIVERSITY, BANGLORE
CASE: Neetu
Singh and Anr. v. Telegram Fz Llc and Ors., 2022
Introduction:
The case was filed in the court of
New Delhi in Justice Pratibha Singh’s Court. The case is about the infringement
of copyright of the plaintiff by the users of an app owned by the defendant.
The suit is filed for the injunction restraining infringement of copyright and disclosure
of identity of such users (Other Respondent) who are unidentified and are protected
under the policies of the telegram app (First Respondent).
Facts:
The case of the Plaintiffs is that
Plaintiff No.1 is a renowned author of books which are designed to train
students aspiring to take various competitive examinations including the
examinations of Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Bank Probationary Officer
(PO), etc. Ms. Neetu Singh founded Plaintiff No.2 - M/s K.D. Campus, which runs
coaching centers for these competitive exams. The suit has been filed by the
Plaintiffs against Defendant No.1/Telegram FZ LLC (hereinafter
"Telegram") and Defendant No.2, i.e., unknown persons.
The allegation in the suit is that
the Plaintiffs' copyrighted works including course material, online lectures
and other works are being disseminated unauthorizedly through various Telegram
channels, some of which, as set out in the plaint, are as under: • Neetu maam
course (t.me/vshusinha1010); • Neetu singh mam (t.me/EnglishbyNeetusinghmam); •
English (t.me/neetu_singh_mam); and many more such channels. The Plaintiffs
aver that on these channels, videos of the lectures delivered by Plaintiff No.1
are being uploaded daily and made accessible to students at discounted rates.
The screenshots of the said videos are extracted in the plaint. The Plaintiffs
also found that the books of the Plaintiffs including books titled 'Plinth to
Paramount' etc. are being circulated in PDF formats on Telegram channels[1].
In so far as Telegram's role is
concerned, according to the Plaintiffs, as per the Privacy Policy of Telegram,
any abuse on Telegram channels can be reported. Accordingly, after acquiring
knowledge of the illegal dissemination of the Plaintiffs' works, e-mails were
sent to the e-mail addresses where abuse can be reported including
abuse@telegram.org and dmca@telegram.org, and the Plaintiffs called upon
Telegram to take down the impugned channels. Upon receipt of the said notices
some channels were taken down by Telegram, but some infringing channels
continued to exist, and new channels came up daily.
Reliefs contended by plaintiffs:
1.
Permanent
injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 and 2, from publishing,
distributing, selling, offering for sale, circulating and unauthorized use of
the literary work "Plinth to Paramount", lectures, videos, notes, and
any other original work of the Plaintiffs; on their platform.
2.
For a
decree for amount of damages as may be determined
by Court.
3. The costs of the suit be awarded to the Plaintiffs.
4.
Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court
thinks fit and proper in the case's circumstances be allowed in favor of the
Plaintiffs and against the Defendants.
Submission (Plaintiff’s Counsel):
It
was submitted by the counsel that as per clauses 3.3.5, 5.3,8.3 of the Privacy
policy of Telegram itself, it has been expressly mentioned that in case of violation
of law, Telegram is liable to take down such channels and disclose information
of the person handling such channels. Thus, the submission for such information
is submitted by plaintiff to recover damages or avail any other remedy against
the person. Furthermore, it was added that the defense of Singapore law by the Defense
council cannot be appropriate in the consideration as such destroys the jurisdiction of the Courts.
Submission (Defendant’s Council):
The
counsel submitted that the arrangements were already taken by Telegram by
removing the channels which were infringing the plaintiff's copyright. He further
added that clause 8.3 of Privacy policy mentions that the information of the
user would only be disclosed when the user indulges in some terror activities. The
counsel further quoted that Rule 4 of IT Guidelines which stated that unless
any circumstances mentioned in first proviso to Rule 4 (1)(2) is satisfied,
even court cannot order to disclose the personal information. The counsel emphasized
on the fact that Telegram has its servers based in Singapore as encrypted data
and decoding would only be permissible by Singapore law. Under section 17 of
Personal Data Protection Act, 2012 of Singapore law says that information
Telegram may reveal certain information upon direction by a "Court",
since the "Court" in terms of the Interpretation means a court of
Singapore, therefore, Indian Courts would not be empowered to pass an order for
disclosure of any information. Finally, Section 72A of Information Technology
Act, 2000 was taken as a ground for defense as it mentions that any disclosure
of information in breach of a lawful contract and would lead to an offense.
Court Findings:
The
court held that the plaintiff has right to the copyright for her work under the
Copyright Act, 1957 as her works comes under the context of ‘literary work’
mentioned in the section 2 (o) and the videos compiled also completes the
requisites to come under the meaning of ‘cinematograph film’ under section 2
(f) of the copyright act. Thus, Section 14 of the Copyright Act exclusively
provides the copyright owner with a right to electronic reproduction of work,
and issuance of copies of the work which are protected. So, the court held that
plaintiffs are eligible to get civil or criminal remedies, when their rights
are infringed, provided under the act. The court was of the opinion that it is
important to protect and enforce the rights and they can merely not be
dismissed just because there is an advancement in technology which made infringers
mask their identities and continue the act of infringement. They recognized
that it is difficult to locate the users who are continuously creating a channel
which are infringing the plaintiff’s copyright. The user’s real identity is
perfectly shielded because of the policies of Telegram. Further, court held
that as infringements are happening in the Indian regime i.e., in New Delhi and
are functioning in Indian Territory and are concerned with Indian competitive
courses like PO, SSC etc., therefore, it is impossible to rule out the
jurisdiction of Indian Courts in the said matter just only on the ground that
their servers are situated abroad.
Court
held that under Section 79 (3)(b) of IT Act, 2000, Telegram is obligated to
disable access to the unlawful or infringing materials. Additionally, Rule 3 of
IT Guidelines specifically provides that intermediaries cannot host, upload,
edit, alter, transmit, update, or share information which led to infringement.
Defendant’s invocation of judgement in Puttaswamy would also be nullified
because Supreme Court has acknowledged the fact that right to privacy does not
provide a ground for non-disclosure of information if the matters call for so[2].
In this case, the Copyright Act has
power to take into custody the ‘infringed copies’ of the work.
Judgement:
The
court held that Defendant No.1 i.e., Telegram is directed to disclose the
details of the channel owners or users which published the infringing content. The
Device details used for uploading the infringing material and communicating the
same shall also be disclosed. If there is any further list of infringing
channels, the same should also be submitted within one week. The data relating
to the infringing channels and the details as to the devices or servers on
which they are customized, created, operated, or published for the purpose of infringing
the plaintiff’s work, it should be disclosed by Telegram within a period of two
weeks thereafter.
Cases Referred:
1.
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy and Anr. vs Union of
India and Ors., 2017
2.
M/S Knit Pro International vs The State of
NCT of Delhi and Anr., 2022.
3.
Indian Bank vs M/S Satyam Fibres (India}
Pvt.Ltd, 1996
4.
Krishan Yadav vs State of Haryana 1994 AIR
2166, 1994 SCC (4) 165
5.
My Space Inc. vs Super Cassettes Industries
Ltd., 2016
6. Tara Batra vs Punam A Kumar &
Ors, 2021
7.
Christian
Louboutin Sas vs Nakul Bajaj & Ors, 2018
Personal Analysis:
According
to me offenders and shutting down the channels which were copying the original
work of the Neetu Singh (Plaintiff) because she prepared everything out of her
time, intellect, labor, and resources. Thus, it is natural for her to use her
intellect work to earn a standard of living and if her hard work is being sold
by others who just want easy money, then it is both morally and legally wrong.
The protection provided as per the policies of Telegram is to safeguard the
identities of its users but using these policies to mask their identities and
continuing going against law is wrong. Thus, it can be concluded that Law shall
always find a way to subsist in the dynamic era., the decision to disclose the
personal data was valid. The whole purpose of law is to protect the rights of
the people, and law itself cannot become a shield for the offenders and their wrongdoings.
In the present case, the Neetu Singh had full right and authority to ask for
disclosure of the
Article Information
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT BY: SAHIL SHYAM SHARMA
Authors: SAHIL SHYAM SHARMA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/10/31
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.