It doesn’t matter if a person is a professional photographer or just a hobbyist; the Law applies to everyone. Hence, breaking the Law by either taking or sharing a photo that’s not permitted or illegally using someone else’s photograph can make a person fall into a lot of trouble. It can cost them thousands of dollars or rupees as legal penalties—Here’s to provide you with all the statistics of Law relating to photography and the right of photographers over their content.

Photography in accordance to Indian Copyrights Law, 1957

In India, under section 2(c) of the copyrights act, 1957 photographs are protected as artistic work (the picture must be original). The photograph’s quality is immaterial. A photograph will be protected even if it’s shoddy work. In accordance to section 25 of the copyright act, the photographs are given copyrights for a period of over 60 years from the day it has been published. Publication doesn’t just mean publishing in a magazine or newspaper; it implies everywhere. The copyright law differs in every country, the duration too. The Indian copyright law is in compliance with many international treaties such as artistic work 1886 and Bernie convention of literary, the agreement of intellectual property rights agreement 1995. The international convention has been passed to protect the member country from the convention and agreement. in accordance to that, foreign artistic work are given protection in India. The photographer is the first owner of the copyright because. He/she will remain the first owner unless entered into a contract. Even if one owns a camera and their friend captures a photograph, which is stunning, the friend owns the image and credits copyrights.

Role of consent and publication- When a person is asked to pose for a photograph, in the absence of an agreement to the contrast, publication of the photograph may not be possible without the person’s consent. But when a man takes a photograph of the unposed people, no such approval may be necessary for publication.

In the case Cadbury India Ltd. v. S.M. Dyechem, if a man who is not an expert in the artistic work sees the visual and if it appears to him that the work is the replica of some other work, then it would result in the infringement of the artistic copyright.

Rights of photographer over their content –

The photographer’s rights are the right to produce, make adaptations of their work, and publish where they want to.

Registration

A photographer may register the copyright of the photograph. However, it is recommended but not mandatory for, the copyright commences as soon as the photograph comes into life. Under the copyright act, the expression of the idea is copyrightable but not per se. Section 51 of the Indian copyright act defends the copyright infringement of photographers. Any violation of the right of the owner/author amounts to copyright infringement.

A client before selling the photograph, it is mandatory to get permission from the photographer. Despite the client’s ownership, a photographer should make sure that neither of them will be using it for commercial purpose. If in case of the use, they have to get permission.

Infringement of copyright and remedies

In Kesari Maratha Trust v. Devidas Tularam Bagul, the Bombay High Court held that the publication of photographs without permission of the photographer by copying them from another published material is an infringement of the copyright photographs. However, a person other than a photographer may use the photograph without any malafide intention of attaining any profit from it, such as using the photograph for teaching/research purposes and judicial proceedings.

With the appearance of new social media platforms and many photo-sharing apps, the imminent risk of a possible copyright infringement through the sharing of photos is now an ever-present phenomenon. In a simple “click-of-a-button” world, it is easy to forget about the potential legal consequences and implications of what we do on social networks.

For example, in 2013, a Haitian photographer, Mr. Daniel Morel won his major copyright victory after a four-year-long struggle over specific photographs of he took of the 2010 earthquake which occurred in Haiti. he posted it on social media. Initially, his photographs were posted on a website known as “TwitPic,” which allows users to put up pictures on Twitter. However, the issue emerged when those pictures were reposted by another user known as Lisandro Suero, who claimed they were his property. Further, Agence France-Presse and Getty Images distributed and sold these photos to their clients for money. Mr. Morel eventually succeeded in his action against the infringement of his rights and was awarded a sum of awarded him $1.22 million.

Remedies

There are three types of remedies against infringement of copyrights: criminal, civil, and administrative.

Criminal remedies (Sections 63 – 66 of Copyright Act, 1957) deals with the imprisonment of the accused person and their imposition of fine or both, seizure of infringing copies, and the delivery of infringing copies to the owner of the copyright.

As provided in the Copyright Act, 1957 (Sections 54 – 62), civil remedies deal with damages, injunction and accounts, delivery of infringing copies, and conversion damages.

Administrative remedies consist of moving Copyrights to ban the imports of infringing copies into India and the delivery of infringing copies seized to the owner of the copyright.

Conclusion

The Copyright Act, 1957 is exhaustive, which can effectively safeguard the rights of photographs posted on social media websites and photographer rights in India. This is because the Law protects detailed copy/paper photographs taken and online posting of photographs. The damage claim appears to be one of the most common remedies for such infringement. The lawmakers took a staunch step by categorizing photographs in the artistic category, thereby widening the subject-matter of copyright. The existing copyright law can competently overcome the latest technology challenges and has a solid legal base for protecting copyright.

 Reference –

 1- https://copyright.gov.in/documents/copyrightrules1957.pdf

 2- https://www.kashishipr.com/blog/what-photographers-need-to-know-about-copyright-protection-in-india/#:~:text=How%20Can%20Photographers%20and%20Photographs,photograph%20can%20also%20be%20protected.

 3- https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/haitian-photographer-wins-major-u-s-copyright-victory/#:~:text=On%20Friday%2C%20the%20Haitian%20photographer,Images%20willfully%20infringed%20upon%20Mr.&text=Morel%20hours%20after%20the%20earthquake%20on%20Jan.

 4- https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30936314

 5- https://www.lawyerservices.in/Kesari-Maratha-Trust-Versus-Devidas-Tularam-Bagul-1998-05-06

 6- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44410582/

The post Law relating to Photography and Rights of Photographers over content appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

 India is an agricultural country. Over 70% of India’s population is directly or indirectly concerned with agriculture-related work. Because of the diligence of these farmers, we can sit and eat in peace. These farmers sustain the whole country; however, it’s a tragic truth that they’re grappling with starvation. The Indian law on Farmers’ Rights is considered successful at least partially by many stakeholders. Now, farmers’ rights are being acknowledged as a global concern, yet a consensus on implementing Farmer’s Rights remains vague. Internationally, it is accepted to a certain extent that farmers are crucial for our nation’s social and political fabric of society and need the Government’s support. India is among the first countries in the world to have passed legislation granting Farmer’s Rights in the form of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer’s Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR). India’s law is unique as it simultaneously attempts to establish breeders’ and farmers’ rights and protect their interests. Lately, the Central Government has established agricultural bills for the farmers’ advantage and the farm sector. Farmers and some state governments are opposing their opinion on these agrarian bills. Farmers across the country have protested against these bills by taking them to the streets. Indian Government introduced the Agriculture Bill in Sept 2020 by our President Ram Nath Kovind approved the three agriculture bills that the Indian Parliament passed.

Farm bill 2020

 In September 2020, India’s President gave assent to three farm bills passed by the Parliament. 

The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020, will allow barrier-free trade in agriculture produce outside the notified APMC ( Agricultural Produce Market Committee). With this bill’s help, the state will not impose barrier taxes on sale and purchase outside the Mandis and give freedom to sell their produce at a fair price. Yet, this bill is beneficial for big farmers as they have more choices and can start selling to private. However, farmer’s income will solely depend upon the ups and downs of the market.

 The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020, is a legal agreement between the farmer and the business owner (contract farming). The agreement will outline the condition for the production of farm products and their delivery requirement (which means the farmer agrees to supply products based on the buyer’s quality standards). The bill’s motive is to prevent the buyer’s change of thought and any form of exploitation. It works as a ”dispute settlement mechanism” between the buyer and the farmer.

The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020 controls the production, supply, and distribution of certain food commodities. With the help of these laws, the central Government can include new commodities when its need arises. They can also take them off the list once the situation improves. The Government believes the new laws will provide farmers with more option, with competition leading to better prices and ushering in a surge of private investment in agricultural marketing, processing, and infrastructure.

Scenario before farm bill 2020 – 

Before the bill was passed, the farm produce was bought and sold primarily in the APMC’s ( state government-regulated markets). Only license traders can buy from APMCs. APMC physically requires farmers to bring their produce to the market, and that was a problem because farmers couldn’t afford transportation to bring it to the market and take it back. So the farmers who couldn’t go to the APMC’s would then sell it to a trader at whatever price they could afford. Before the bill was passed, the APMCs protect the small farmers because it’s a regulated space. There is a licensed trader, and there’s someone to complain regarding the concerns of the farmers. But over the period of time, APMCs have become a monopoly. Corruption started to occur, and middlemen and traders began to rule the roost. 

Farmer’s concern and demand –

• The Government affirms that the APMC system is flawed, and the only way to fix it to allow the farmers to direct taxes to the private sector. To enable private sectors to set up similar mandis across the country. The farmers fear that if the APMCs get wiped out, the farmers will effectively leave only at the private sectors’ mercy if the private sector begins to drive down the prices and has no option to lean on their concerns.

• APMC is where the farmers get their MSP (minimum support price). Farmers argue that if this law weakens APMC over a period of time and if the APMC shutdown, the MSP will go down with them. Because technically, a private sector Mandis is under no obligation to offer the MSP, and there’s no guarantee.

• 80% of farmers in our countries are small farmers (they have a small portion of land comparatively), so the farmers fear that they will not be able to have bargaining power against the corporates on the legal front.

• The salesmen raise the price of fruits/vegetables and sell them at higher prices to consumers, whereas farmers receive only a thin amount. Farmers should have ownership rights, but it is not easy to produce new varieties. And if money and opportunity are provided sufficiently by the Government, farmers can also invent and innovate. Farmers demand a law that is put in place that will guarantee payments from the buyers through intermediaries. Middlemen are also making money by selling the product for more than its purchase price.

• The law specifies that no one can file a case about this law’s specification against either the Central/state government or any state/central government officers. Farmers say that the problem with it is it takes away their fundamental rights to approach the courts.

• Farmers argue that these laws are throwing them to the wolves, the private sector. The private sectors are under no obligation to look after the farmers’ welfare. The private sector’s duty fundamentally is to its shareholders and its profits.

 Conclusion 

Imagine a situation where are the basic necessity of life (one that we call food, shelter, clothing) is circumvented by Government, what havoc and disturbance it can bring to society. As a society, we need to understand that the farmers act as a fundamental backbone of our Indian economy. And in this pandemic where everyone is struggling with their problems, the farmers were the ones who kept on producing, cultivating essential crops for running the economy and successfully transporting them to mandis.  These three 3 acts are revolutionary if the Government addresses the loopholes. The loopholes are quite concerning, and the Government should discuss the same with farmers to be more efficient and effective. The Government should form a proper contract farming mechanism so big rapacious corporates do not exploit any farmers. To solve conflicts between farmers and traders. The Government of india should establish a separate regulatory body rather than a Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The MSP system is very flawed, and even though the Government recently said that they are not repealing MSP, they still need to address the fact that only 6% of Farmers of our are getting benefits. The Government should Implement this scheme more efficiently and effectively by spreading awareness with Gram panchayat’s help so that the small farmers will know about this and get the benefit. Farmers in our country are not united. It would be better if farmers form a nationwide group or local groups to deal with big traders. More than ever, Effective implementation from the Government is necessary. 

References

• http://164.100.47.4/BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/PassedLoksabha/113_2020_LS_Eng.pdf
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers_(Empowerment_and_Protection)_Agreement_on_Price_Assurance_and_Farm_Services_Act,_2020
• https://www.financialexpress.com/economy/explained-what-the-new-farm-bills-are-all-about-and-why-being-opposed/2086681/
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344508649_Impact_of_India’s_New_Farm_Act_2020_on_Farmers_and_Markets/link/5f7d6dfda6fdccfd7b4ca7d1/download
• https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/three-farm-bills

The post Farmer’s Rights: Before and After Farm Bill appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Kunal Saha Vs. AMRI (Advanced Medical Research Institute) –

Anuradha, a child psychologist, she had come to her hometown Kolkata in March 1998 for a summer vacation. She complained to them of her skin rashes on April 25 and had consulted Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, who, without prescribing any medicine, asked her to take a rest. As rashes appeared more aggressively, on May 7, 1998, Dr Mukherjee prescribed Depomedrol injection 80 mg twice daily, a step that specialists later faulted at the apex court. After administering the injection, Anuradha’s condition worsened rapidly, following which she had to be admitted to AMRI on May 11 under Dr Mukherjee’s surveillance. Saha, in his plea before NCDRC, had necessitated a record of Rs 77 crore as Compensation. While granting Rs 1,72,87,500 as Compensation to Saha for his wife’s death, NCDRC had held the U.S. doctor accountable for contributing to the three Kolkata doctors. The hospital’s negligence ordered a 10 percent reduction in the amount of Compensation, making it Rs 1.55 crore. Another doctor was also involved in Anuradha’s treatment, Abani Roy Chowdhury, had passed away during the case’s pendency. As Anuradha’s condition failed to improve, she flew to Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai. there she was found to be suffering from a rare and deadly skin disease called Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN).

She died there on May 28, 1998.

Saha then filed a criminal and a civil case against the doctors and both the hospitals on the grounds that they were grossly negligent in her treatment, leading to her death. In brief, these were the case’s facts and circumstances; in this case, the Supreme court gave the final verdict on October 24, 2013, and Compensation of around  6.08 crore for his wife’s death.

V. Krishan Rao v Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital 2010 –

Krishna Rao, an officer in the malaria department, filed a complaint against the hospital for negligently conducting his wife’s treatment. The hospital treated her for typhoid and giving medication for the same instead of malaria fever. The complainant’s wife complained of respiratory trouble. The complainant also brought forward to the notice of the authorities that, artificial oxygen to the patient. In Accordance to the complainant at that stage, artificial oxygen was not necessary, but without ascertaining the patient’s actual necessity, the same was given.  As the treatment has been given for typhoid, the medicines would have been for the exact cause and cure also has their side effect. They have been very negligent while discharging their sole duty towards their patient.

When the judgement was given, Rao was given a compensation of Rs 2 lakhs. In this case, the principle applied was Res Ipsa Loquitor, which means ‘the thing speaks for itself. Thus, the Compensation was awarded to the plaintiff.

 Samira Kohli vs. Dr. Prabha Manchanda and Ors –

The court held that consent given for diagnostic and operating laparoscopy does not consent for a total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The appellant was not a minor, neither mentally challenged nor disabled. As the patient was a sane adult, there was no question of someone else giving consent on her behalf. The appellant was under anesthesia, thus unconscious, and as there was no emergency. The respondent should have waited till the appellant regained consciousness and gave proper consent. The question of taking the patient’s mother’s consent does not arise in the absence of an emergency. Consent given by her mother is not valid or accurate consent. The issue was not about the accuracy of removing reproductive organs but the failure to obtain consent for removing the reproductive organs as performing surgery without taking consent amounts to an unauthorized intrusion and interference with the appellant’s body. The respondent was restrained from paying the surgery fee wholly but directed to pay only the Compensation of unauthorized surgery.

Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha –

The supreme court has reiterated that services rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner (except where the doctor cause services free of charge to every patient or under a contract of personal service) by way of consultation, treatment and diagnosis, both surgical and medical, would fall within the service as defined in section 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The judgment has faced a lot of opposition from the people involved in the medical field. However, this judgment has come as a wave of relief for all the consumers. With rampant increase in commercialization of services, including medical services, the patient has now become a mere consumer. This causes deterioration in the fiduciary relationship between a doctor and his/her patient. This judgment that reaches the arms of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the medical profession will undoubtedly enable to keep a check on the doctors to discharge their duties diligently, for it is always the patient’s life at stake. It will make the method of treatment and surgery more transparent. One negative aspect of this judgment is that it does not prescribe any relief or Compensation for free medical services.

Consequently, solely doctors who work in paid hospitals fall under the scanner, while those who work in hospitals giving free medical services will go safe if they perform any error. Also, the burden of proof is upon the patient to prove negligence on the doctor’s part. Somewhat, the burden of proof should be shifted onto the doctor to prove that he was keen enough while performing his duties.

Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia –

In this case Court, held that when a young child was carried to a private hospital by parents and treated by the doctors. Then not only just the child but his parents are also treated as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, a parent can claim the Compensation under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the child’s parents and the child who was the service’s beneficiary. The hospital argued that adequate care had indeed been taken and hence would not be authorized to pay compensation for the mental agony the parents have went through. They disputed that the parents would not come under the definition of consumer in the consumer protection act. The court accurately pointed out that this contention was false since the consumer’s definition under the act includes parents.

The post Top 5 landmark judgment on Medical Negligence appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.