Talk:Copyright law of India

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disclaimer

I'm not a lawyer, so my statements in the summary, esp. about Section 32 needs verification. Skumarla 02:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Hello,

Is it true that a translation does not produce a new copyright under Indian law? Yann 10:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through [1] gives the impression that a translation is equal to copying ! There are too many problems in the Indian copyright Act. Not much that most can do much about. There is also poor coverage on what constitutes "creativity", work of government, database/compilation copyright etc. Shyamal 10:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of Govt works

I propose to delete certain inaccurate and unverifiable statements which impute that Government documents allegedly being copyrighted cannot be disclosed under Right to Information laws. There is a public discussion on this at this URL - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/1768 Landirenzo (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United States copyright law which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 12:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full text: The Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012

Full text: The Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012 (The bill is still not signed by Presedent of India) Mahitgar (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

60 years always?

Has the Indian copyright legislation always been 60 years or has it been a shorter period? If shorter, what year did it change? That would be useful to the article. Thank you. 125.7.50.10 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request about "(Indian) Copyright Act, 1957" at en wikisource

In last couple of days, at english language wikisource project, I have worked quite a bit on (Indian) Copyright Act, 1957 to update the same to include changes of copyright amendment act 2012. Please note on most of internet as of now Copyright Act, 1957 may not be uptodate with 2012 amendments, and en wikisource would be one of those few (and also free) places where people can refer the updated document, Provided that it is peer reviewed for accuracy.

As of now this is not general invitation to read the document, but first I am seeking help in peer review and improvement of the document at en wikisource from people who are comfortable/or used to reading bare act versions of the law.

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Works created in former princely states?

What is the copyright status and laws applying to works which were originally created in former Indian princely states which only formally became part of India in 1949? Cfynn (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review and document improvement request

This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for relinquishment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules.

Mahitgar (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

The article says:

"Prior to 21 January 1958, The Indian Copyright Act, 1914 was applicable in India and still applicable for works created prior to 21 January 1958, when the new Act came into force. ( the Copyright Act of 1911 passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom as modified in its application to India by the Indian Copyright Act, 1914). According to this Act, the period of copyright for photographs was 50 years from the time it was first published." [emphasis added, refs removed]

The article goes on to quote the Act: "Act language is: "the term for which copyright shall subsist in photographs shall be fifty years from the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived..." [emphasis added]

It appears that "50 years from the time it was first published" is incorrect -- it was actually fifty years from creation.

. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should note that-- unless I'm mistaken-- the term of copyright under the 1914 act for most works (e.g. books) is 50 years from the death of the author, not from the date of publication. this means that works published before 1958 or even before 1947 are not necessarily in the public domain. I've seen this wikipedia article cited erroneously on this point because the section on the pre-1958 law only discusses photographs. Ssegalla (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

It seems a stub article was created in full name of the case. After Feb 2017 it did not get much edits beyond categorisation. Full name article is The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Others (DU Photocopy Case)

1) For one full name of the case too long and defficult to search since it begins with 'The' 2) There can be many other cases where in Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford and Delhi university will be involved but name of Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case likely to remain more unique. 3) The full name article can always be redirected to Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case article.

Hence I do suggest we do merge The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Others (DU Photocopy Case) be merged in and redirected to Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case article.

Please let me know your views at Talk:Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case#Merger proposal

Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copyright law of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120201004419/http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/AKS/judgement/01-10-2011/AKS03082011FAOOS6352009.pdf to http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/AKS/judgement/01-10-2011/AKS03082011FAOOS6352009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]