Exploring Sovereign Immunity in Copyright Infringement: How India Can Learn from the Global Experience
Keywords:
-Abstract
Compared to the analogous use of patented inventions, the government's use of copyrighted works, though a very important sector, has gotten less attention. However, reports of such usage by the government or sovereign have been made in a number of nations, including the USA, where the eminent domain authority was used to provide some sort of explanation. This article uses a comparative analysis of significant jurisdictions to investigate this little-studied but crucial aspect of intellectual property law.
Downloads
References
The Latin phrase, “cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos”: according to this maxim the owner also gets an exclusive right to the mines and minerals contained underground.
Zemer L, What copyright is: Time to remember the basics, Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal, 4 (2207) 54 at 57.
Zemer L, What copyright is: Time to remember the basics, Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal, 4 (2207) 54 at 63.
See generally Section 14, Indian Copyright Act 1957.
The Indian Copyright Act 1957 provides for civil, criminal and administrative remedies. Such remedies are available under the copyright statues of all countries.
Kwall R R, Governmental Use of Copyrighted property: The sovereign’s prerogative, Texas Law Review, 67 (1989) 685 at 687-8.
In countries like UK, India, Australia etc., the government holds the copyright with respect to works made by, or under its the direction or control, while in US, copyright protection is not available for any work of the US Government.
Shoenfeld S, The Applicability of Eleventh Amendment Immunity Under the Copyright Acts of 1909 and 1976, American University Law Review, 36 (1) (1986) 163 at 165.
28 USC § 1498(b).
Nichols’ the Law of Eminent Domain, edited by L J Sackman et al., revised 3rd edn, § 1.11, 1985.
Kohl v United States, 91 U.S. 367, at 373-74 (1875).Georgia v City of Chattanooga, 264 U.S. 472, at 480 (1924)
Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, http://www.law. cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment (last accessed 20 April 2014).
Merrill T W, The economics of public use, Cornell Law Review, 72 (1986) 61 at 63. There are many cases to support this point of view like Poletown Neighborhood Council v City of Detroit, 304 N.W.2d 455 (1981), City of Oakland vOakland Raiders, 183 Cal. Rptr. 673 (1982), etc.
Numerous US cases support this view, the landmark cases being West River Bridge Co v Dix, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 507, at 533 (1848), Kimball Laundry Co v United States, 338 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1949).
Kwall R R, Governmental Use of Copyrighted property: The sovereign’s prerogative, Texas Law Review, 67 (1989) 685 at 694.
Arthur S Curtis v The United States, 168 F. Supp. 213 (1958).
Arthur S Curtis v The United States, 168 F. Supp. 213 at 214 (1958).
Arthur S Curtis v The United States, 168 F. Supp. 213 at 216 (1958).
Under the US Copyright Law there is primary/direct liability and secondary/indirect liability. Secondary liability can be either contributory infringement or vicarious infringement.
John C Boyle v United States, 200 F.3d 1369 at 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
John C Boyle v United States, 200 F.3d 1369 at 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
17 USC § 107 (1994), http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 (last accessed 23 April 2014).
Full text of the opinion is available at http://www.loc. gov/flicc/gc/fairuse.html (last visited accessed 23 April 2014).
Williams & Wilkins Co v United States, 487 F.2d 1345 (Ct. Cl. 1973), the same was affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court while deciding the appeal, 420 U.S. 376 (1975).
Williams & Wilkins Co v United States, 487 F.2d 1345 at 1348.
Key Maps Inc v Pruitt, 470 F. Supp. 33 (S.D. Tex. 1978).
See Sections 45-50 of CDPA 1988.
Section 47 (1) CDPA 1988.
Section 49 CDPA 1988.
Section 183 (1) Copyright Act 1968.
Section 183 (4) Copyright Act 1968.
Section 183 (5) Copyright Act 1968
Section 43 Copyright Act 1968.
Copyright Agency Ltd v State of New South Wales [2008] HCA 35, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2008
html (last accessed 23 April 2014).
The other argument was that it was the owner of copyright under Section 177 of Copyright Act 1968 since it was the first to publish the plans.
Copyright Agency Limited v State of New South Wales
[2007] FCAFC 80, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth
/FCAFC /2007/80.html (last accessed 23 April 2014).
Section 63, Copyright Act 1994.
Section 63 (1) (a), Copyright Act 1994.
Section 63 (1) (b), Copyright Act 1994.
Section 198 (1), Copyright Act 1987.
Section 198 (2), Copyright Act 1987.
Section 198 (4), Copyright Act 1987, Government need not inform the copyright owner if it causes prejudice to public interest.
Section 198 (10), Copyright Act 1987.
Article 45, Deutsches Urheberrecht.
Section 52 (1) (c) Copyright Act 1957.
Section 52 (1) (d) Copyright Act 1957.
Section 52 (1) (e) Copyright Act 1957.
Section 52 (1) (za) Copyright Act 1957.
Section 52 (1) (e) Copyright Act 1957 of the Act seems to be very basic and is not broad enough to cover the various emerging uses.
