The Delhi high court on Tuesday directed social media companies to furnish information in respect of channels violating the copyright law and made an undertaking that no violation will be tolerated. A bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan said while it does not pass comments on a case, it is open to the company to say why such violations have occurred. It also asked Facebook Inc’s Instagram and WhatsApp to comply within 48 hours with court directives for deleting infringing content.
It ordered these two social media platforms to supply details about their channels violating the copyright law which include details like the number of times violators are making posts and the time they violated copyright rules. The court issued these directions after multiple applications from various stakeholders seeking similar orders were rejected by different courts.
The bench was hearing two appeals against three sets of HC orders passed last year. First, a private member’s suit challenging a single judge order imposing interim protection from infringement of copyright and trade secret over the post of Chief Executive Officer of KPMG LLP as well as another complainant (in another lawsuit) challenging a division bench ruling, extending interim measures till January 22, 2021. Responding arguments include submissions that “interim protection” has been extended without considering the status of other litigation which are pending in higher courts.
This case relates to KPMG LLP which used its official email id to violate copyright laws by uploading unauthorized images of senior executives in corporate bodies and also using the firm’s name for promotional purposes. The respondents included Google LLC, Yahoo! Inc., Twitter India Ltd., Facebook Inc., YouTube India Ltd., Snapdeal, Netflix India Inc, Reliance Digital Ltd., Sunflower Labs Private Limited and Vakrangee Mobile Finance Company Limited (Vakrangee).
The second plaintiff is one Shukla who is alleged to have committed criminal conspiracy, breach or abuse of trust, infringement of copyright and unfair competition, inducing a breach of confidence, aggravated assault on civil society and public nuisance.
The third plaintiff is NGO Common Cause Advocates’ Association which claimed violation of human rights and violation of national policy. They contended that intermediaries and websites use to promote and spread hate speech, violence and fake news without any accountability to truth or reality.
The appeals court held that there was no need for detailed orders on issues arising out of the inter-company communication, and a simple direction to inform the parties about how much notice had been served under Section 13 of the Patents Act.
With the orders, the court observed that intermediary users such as bloggers can now upload information which violates copyright law from the source and if found guilty, they would face legal action. As per the court, this should be considered a routine practice of the internet where anyone can file a complaint or put up something which violates copyright law. If found guilty, they will have to pay damages and legal costs.
All users of social media platforms can access search results of their account. This includes those in favour of judicial review petitions which had been raised against the Supreme Court’s judgement. However, it also includes those against judicial review petitions.
The bench said these cases should not be taken lightly because many people were affected and their lives were seriously threatened. There is a huge risk and threat in doing business on the internet because of the internet and technology. We are very conscious about it, it is our responsibility, we ask you to do your part as well as possible to avoid making yourself vulnerable, said Justice Prateek Jalan.
The appeals court also said that in view of such a large scale operation engaged by the defendants in the present matters, it was difficult to maintain their position that even inter-mediary users had the right to complain, the bench said. The court also said that if inter-mediary users and their networks were allowed to post messages, tweets etc. but did not infringe copyright rules, then it might happen.
The court’s directions came on a plea filed by lawyers Anuj Garg, Rajeev Ranjan Pankaj Sharma and Vinod Singh seeking an undertaking from the defendants to abide by directions given by it within stipulated timeframe. They have sought an undertaking to not post the infringing material on their profiles and handlebars of their accounts.
It ordered these two social media platforms to supply details about their channels violating the copyright law which include details like the number of times violators are making posts and the time they violated copyright rules. The court issued these directions after multiple applications from various stakeholders seeking similar orders were rejected by different courts.
The bench was hearing two appeals against three sets of HC orders passed last year. First, a private member’s suit challenging a single judge order imposing interim protection from infringement of copyright and trade secret over the post of Chief Executive Officer of KPMG LLP as well as another complainant (in another lawsuit) challenging a division bench ruling, extending interim measures till January 22, 2021. Responding arguments include submissions that “interim protection” has been extended without considering the status of other litigation which are pending in higher courts.
This case relates to KPMG LLP which used its official email id to violate copyright laws by uploading unauthorized images of senior executives in corporate bodies and also using the firm’s name for promotional purposes. The respondents included Google LLC, Yahoo! Inc., Twitter India Ltd., Facebook Inc., YouTube India Ltd., Snapdeal, Netflix India Inc, Reliance Digital Ltd., Sunflower Labs Private Limited and Vakrangee Mobile Finance Company Limited (Vakrangee).
The second plaintiff is one Shukla who is alleged to have committed criminal conspiracy, breach or abuse of trust, infringement of copyright and unfair competition, inducing a breach of confidence, aggravated assault on civil society and public nuisance.
The third plaintiff is NGO Common Cause Advocates’ Association which claimed violation of human rights and violation of national policy. They contended that intermediaries and websites use to promote and spread hate speech, violence and fake news without any accountability to truth or reality.
The appeals court held that there was no need for detailed orders on issues arising out of the inter-company communication, and a simple direction to inform the parties about how much notice had been served under Section 13 of the Patents Act.
With the orders, the court observed that intermediary users such as bloggers can now upload information which violates copyright law from the source and if found guilty, they would face legal action. As per the court, this should be considered a routine practice of the internet where anyone can file a complaint or put up something which violates copyright law. If found guilty, they will have to pay damages and legal costs.
All users of social media platforms can access search results of their account. This includes those in favour of judicial review petitions which had been raised against the Supreme Court’s judgement. However, it also includes those against judicial review petitions.
The bench said these cases should not be taken lightly because many people were affected and their lives were seriously threatened. There is a huge risk and threat in doing business on the internet because of the internet and technology. We are very conscious about it, it is our responsibility, we ask you to do your part as well as possible to avoid making yourself vulnerable, said Justice Prateek Jalan.
The appeals court also said that in view of such a large scale operation engaged by the defendants in the present matters, it was difficult to maintain their position that even inter-mediary users had the right to complain, the bench said. The court also said that if inter-mediary users and their networks were allowed to post messages, tweets etc. but did not infringe copyright rules, then it might happen.
The court’s directions came on a plea filed by lawyers Anuj Garg, Rajeev Ranjan Pankaj Sharma and Vinod Singh seeking an undertaking from the defendants to abide by directions given by it within stipulated timeframe. They have sought an undertaking to not post the infringing material on their profiles and handlebars of their accounts.
4 Comments
Noodlemagazine Hi there to all, for the reason that I am genuinely keen of reading this website’s post to be updated on a regular basis. It carries pleasant stuff.
Businessiraq.com is committed to supporting the growth and development of Iraq’s economy. As part of this commitment, the website provides a range of resources and tools to help businesses succeed in the country. These resources include industry reports, market research, and business guides, all of which are designed to help businesses navigate the Iraqi market and identify new opportunities. By providing access to these resources, Businessiraq.com helps businesses to make informed decisions, mitigate risks, and achieve their goals.
Mitolyn I appreciate you sharing this blog post. Thanks Again. Cool.
I do believe all the ideas youve presented for your post They are really convincing and will certainly work Nonetheless the posts are too short for novices May just you please lengthen them a little from subsequent time Thanks for the post