The document discusses moral rights under Indian copyright law. It notes that moral rights were first recognized internationally in the Berne Convention and domestically under Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act. However, it finds that the law lacks clarity on several key aspects of moral rights such as waiver, what constitutes derogatory treatment, duration of protection for authors vs performers, and treatment of parodies. It concludes that while Indian law now grants moral rights to performers, the law remains vague and would benefit from greater clarification on these outstanding issues.

1. Presented by:-
Dhruv Tripathi

2.  The idea of moral rights originated in France.
 „Droit moral‟ or moral rights were an integral part of the
ancient European tradition.
 First time recognized at an international platform at the
Berne convention. Article 6bis of the convention stated:
“independently of the author's economic rights, and even
after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have
the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to
any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or
other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which
would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.”

3.  Article 27 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral
and material interests resulting from any scientific,
literary or artistic production of which he is the
author.”

4.  Section 57:
1) Independently of the author‟s copyright and even after the assignment either wholly
or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right-
(a) To claim authorship of the work : and
(b) To restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification
or other act in relation to the said work which is done before the expiration of the
term of copyright if such distortion, mutilation, modification or other act would be
prejudicial to his honor or reputation.
Section 38 B

5. 1. Waiver of moral rights: Allowed????
 Not explicitly stated anywhere unlike other jurisdictions. For
eg; in US, Section 106 of VARA provides for waiver of moral
rights if it is through a written contract.
 Scholars believe it is allowed if it is explicitly stated in a
written contract. However, nothing in the language of Section
57 to suggest this.

6. 2. What constitutes “derogatory treatment of
work”???
Two tests for determining derogatory treatment:
 Objective Test: Perception of the judge as to the
effects of the said alteration or modifications on the
reputation of the author.
 Subjective test: Author‟s own perception of the
alteration and its impact on his reputation.

7.  In India, legislative history suggests subjective test. for eg; in
Amarnath Sehgal Case judges decided on basis of subjective
test. Had it been objective test Sehgal wouldn‟t have got relief
as he had not suffered any moral or other reputational harm as
public couldn‟t see his work at all.
 Thus no clarity as to the position in India.

8. 3. Right against false attribution:
 Right to disclaim authorship not explicitly provided.
 In UK 4 moral rights provided, one of them being “ right
against false attribution.”
 Similarly in US the right against misattribution recognized
under the VARA and Lanham act, wherein if a work is
attributed to an author against his/her will without his/her
permission then it will amount to violation of the author‟s
right of publicity.
 In Australia, Section 195 of the Copyright Act provides the
right against false attribution.

9.  In India, no such express provision is there.
 Action, if any, lies in law of torts under defamation.
 However right to sue for defamation does not lie after
death of the author.
 Thus this should be provided for under Section 57 of
Copyright Act.

10. 4. Duration of protection??
 For authors, perpetual protection granted after 2012 amendment: legal
representatives can claim right.
 No such similar protection for moral rights of performers: why???
 In UK, under Section 205M of the Performances (Moral Rights etc)
Regulation, 2006 moral rights can be exercised by the legal
representatives of the performer.
 What would justify such discriminatory treatment between authors and
performers???

11. 5. Scope of protection
 Whether parodies infringing moral rights of author??
OR
 Whether parodies should have independent moral right
protection??

12.  In Russia, special protection granted to creators of parodies
provided their work does not violate the moral rights of the
authors.
 In France, on the other hand, even the author of the parody
enjoys exclusive moral rights.
 Indian Copyright Act, however is silent on the issue.

13.  Moral rights granted to performers with 2012 amendment is a
welcome change.
 However law vague, ambiguous and lacks clarity on critical
points.
 Thus possibility of misuse by granting less or excessive
protection
 Need of the hour is to make law clear and explicit on these
points.

14. THANK YOU