ABSTRACT
Copyright protection is rapidly becoming the top concern for publishers, users, and content creators in the digital age. This essay examines the difficulties in enforcing copyright in the digital age, including the ease of dissemination and reproduction, the difficulties in tracking, the complexity of ownership, and the high cost of enforcement. The purpose of copyright laws is to fairly safeguard the rights of both owners and users.
Copyright laws are still in effect in the digital age. Libraries need to make sure that the public has the same access rights to digital content as they do to printed materials, since more and more information is becoming available in this format. It offers a number of remedies for these problems, such as watermarking, digital rights management, copyright education, and legal action.
The widespread use of digital technologies has made it simpler than ever to access, copy, and distribute protected materials. But with greater accessibility comes greater difficulty in maintaining intellectual property rights and enforcing copyright rules. This paper will look at the problems with copyright protection in the digital era and possible solutions.
INTRODUCTION
The original purpose of copyright was to safeguard creators from censorship and outside interference while acting as a vehicle for their right to free expression. In order to facilitate future creation, a balance between absolute control and freedom was established. Through restrictions on the exclusive right, some uses were prevented from falling under the authority of the right owner. Nevertheless, the creative reuse of copyright-protected material in the context of derivative works was not specifically addressed by any of the limit systems that are currently in place in the various jurisdictions.
However, if an author has to use an expression from a previous copyrighted work in his creative process, he has to get permission from the original work’s copyright owner. As it’s not always easy to locate the right owners, things could get really complicated in this case. Above all, it might lead to private censorship, as private groups or individuals could decide what can and cannot be produced and stop new works from being published.
Therefore, it may be difficult to reconcile this scenario with the goals of copyright, which are to encourage creativity, or with the duties placed on States by internationally and regionally recognized human rights, which include the freedom of expression and the right to create art. In order to develop a satisfactory legal mechanism known as Lege ferenda, this article will evaluate the various options available to legislators and courts to secure creative uses in the context of derivative works.
It will specifically address potential objections that may arise from the international and regional framework for the protection of both intellectual property and human rights. The way we produce, consume, and distribute material has completely changed in the digital age. It is now simpler than ever to generate and share digital information, including text, photos, movies, and music, thanks to the advancement of digital technology, including the internet, social media, and mobile devices.
But copyright protection has also faced certain difficulties in this digital age. It is now increasingly difficult to stop copyright infringement and piracy in digital content due to the ease of duplication and distribution. Furthermore, maintaining ownership and abiding by copyright regulations can be difficult and expensive procedures. Unlike the standard notion of intellectual property, communal intellectual property is the application and realization of a system where intellectual property is jointly owned and controlled by a community or group of individuals. The traditional notion of intellectual property and communal intellectual property represent two distinct approaches, notwithstanding possible significant overlap. The emphasis on ownership is the primary differentiator between the two.
The necessity for shared intellectual property is particularly important given the current state of affairs, where information sharing in the digital world has crossed geographic boundaries. In today’s worldwide digital world, technology like as block chain, decentralized systems, and online platforms can facilitate the creation, distribution, and management of collective intellectual property assets. when a result, when communal intellectual property is steadily realized and implemented, it is imperative to investigate the essential components that permit this kind of intellectual property sharing.
This ensures that the systems and procedures used to promote collective intellectual property (IP) comply with current copyright laws, intellectual property rights, and other relevant legal frameworks. It also supports the protection of producers’, consumers’, and other stakeholders’ rights within the ecosystem of shared intellectual property. Technology used in the communal intellectual property space needs to be regulated because it often involves the collection, archiving, and sharing of sensitive data, including intellectual property assets, personal information, and the cultural, historical, and anthropological legacies of different cultures.
As a result, regulations facilitate the development of laws and policies that protect people’s privacy, security, and artistic endeavours in addition to traditional cultural heritage. By making sure that data handling practices adhere to industry standards and regulatory regulations, it reduces the likelihood of data breaches, unauthorized access, and misuse of personal identity and intellectual property information.
COPYRIGHT
Original works of authorship are protected by copyright, a sort of intellectual property, as soon as the author fixes the work in a concrete form of expression. There are many different kinds of works covered by copyright law, such as plays, architectural works, digital programs, books, poems, blog posts, sound recordings, paintings, photos, illustrations, and more.
A copyright is a set of legal protections that belong to the creator of an original piece of authorship, such as a song, movie, software, or literary work. These rights cover the ability to distribute copies, create derivative works, reproduce the work, and perform and exhibit it in public. It helps to think of these rights as a bundle of sticks, with each stick standing in for one of these rights, in order to comprehend how they can be used or licensed.
The owner of the copyright has the option to transmit each “stick” to one or more recipients individually, collectively, or to keep them all for themselves. To put it briefly, copyright gives the owner the freedom to decide how the public can access their works. The main goal of copyright is to encourage and compensate writers by granting them the right to own their creations, which the public is then free to enjoy.
According to the notion, creators benefit economically by being granted certain exclusive rights that shield their works from theft, while the public benefits from the creation and dissemination of creative works that may not have otherwise occurred. Although the goal of copyright law is to provide the public with access to creative works for enrichment, it’s crucial to realize that authors are under no legal responsibility to make their copyrighted works available.
COPYRIGHT – A movie that has been adapted from a book or video game that was originally based on a well-known motion picture is known as a derivative work.
THE RIGHT TO WORKSUBJECTIVE TO PREPARE – A film that is adapted from one of these media, or a video game or book that is based on a popular movie, is considered a derivative creation.
THE RIGHT TO CARRY OUT PUBLIC WORKS – A drama is performed in public when it is shown to an audience. Playwrights who allow their work to be performed by others are entitled to royalties and control over the performance of their creation. The right to perform sound recordings in public using digital audio transmission.
THE PERMIT TO DISSEMBER COPIES – In the digital age, disseminating copies would be equivalent to publishing stuff online.
The right to publicly exhibit works it is considered fair use in educational institutions when a teacher uses a copy of a painting during a class on art. If the painting is used in a distancelearning course and made publicly available on an open website, it is no longer just on display in a classroom for instructional purposes. The painting may be used if it is accessible through a class website, provided that the website is protected and only students are permitted access.
IPR DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA
1. Patents & Designs Act, 1911, 1947
2. India joined the WTO in 1995.
3. It joined the Paris Convention/PCT in 1998.
4. In 1999, a patent amendment gave EMR retroactive effect from January 1, 1995.
5. 2003: Second Amendment to the Patent Act; 20-year patent term following 18 months of publication; Chennai-based Patent Tribunal established.
6. 1999–2005: Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act & Biodiversity Act, Designs, TM/Copyright Acts updated GI Registry set –Patents (Amendment) Act 2005. TRIPS compliant IP Acts.
Original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works as well as cinematographic films and sound recordings are shielded from unlawful use under the Copyright Act, 1957. In contrast to patents, copyright safeguards utterances rather than concepts. A concept is not protected by copyright. A work automatically acquires copyright at the time of creation; no formalities need to be followed to do so. Nonetheless, there are options to have the work entered into the Department of Education’s Copyright Office’s Register of Copyrights.
In a court of law, the entries recorded in the Register of Copyrights are prima facie evidence. The Registrar of Copyrights oversees the Copyright Office, which was established to offer registration services for all kinds of works. It is possible to register both published and unpublished items. If the works retain their copyright, copyright in publications produced prior to January 21, 1958—that is, before the Copyright Act of 1957 went into effect—can also be registered. The application may be submitted with up to three copies of published work.
If the work to be registered has never been published, a copy of the manuscript must be submitted with the application for the Copyright Office’s stamp to be applied as evidence that the work has been registered. If two copies of the manuscript are sent, one copy that has been properly stamped will be returned, and the second copy will be preserved as secret and as a record as much as feasible in the Copyright Office.
The applicant may also choose to submit only excerpts from the unpublished work rather than the entire manuscript and request that the excerpts be returned once they have been sealed with the Copyright Office’s seal. In India, copyright is typically valid for 60 years. The year after the author’s passing is used to calculate the 60-year period for original literary, theatrical, musical, and artistic works. The 60-year period is calculated from the date of publication for cinematograph films, sound recordings, pictures, posthumous publications, anonymous and pseudonymous publications, government works, and works of international organizations.
CREATIVITY
The regulation of intellectual property (IP) is essential to the advancement of creativity and innovation. It gives innovators and creators the legal tools to safeguard their concepts and works of art, enabling them to profit monetarily from their labours. This encourages more invention and creativity, which benefits society overall as well as individual creators. This essay will examine how intellectual property law affects innovation and creativity and why it is crucial for businesses to comprehend and abide by these regulations.
The fact that intellectual property law gives creative works legal protection is one of the main ways it influences innovation and creativity. This covers patents for inventions, trademarks for company names and logos, and copyrights for creative works such as music, literature, and art. IP law encourages innovators and inventors to keep coming up with new ideas by giving them the only right to monetize their creations.
Ensuring that inventors and creators receive just compensation for their labour is another crucial function of intellectual property law. IP legislation protects them from being taken advantage of by those who might try to profit from their work without permission by giving them the sole right to profit from their creations. This serves to safeguard the rights of individual creators and innovators while also ensuring their ability to produce new works and innovate, which benefits society at large.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Conversely, copyright is a property right granted to the creators of specific types of creative works. The natural law appears to be the source of many concepts related to intellectual property and human rights, most notably the Lockean moral desert argument, which maintained that property rights should be proportional with the sacrifice made. Thus, property rights can be understood as a compensation for labour invested in the creation of new works.
Furthermore, copyright is a property right, which is related to human rights. In addition, the author has the moral and financial right to continue producing work of integrity as well as the economic right to benefit financially from his labours. The authors’ freedom of expression and their ability to pursue any career are also related to copyright. Regarding the broader public interest, there is a widespread perception that copyright protection infringes upon certain fundamental human rights, such as the right to education, cultural rights, and information access.
Human rights are meant for all people, and copyright protects the rights of the specific human being who created the work; hence, the latter should take precedence over the former. Freedom of Speech and Expression: Every human being is entitled to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the UDHR. The right to freely express oneself is referred to as freedom of speech and expression. The dispute over copyright and freedom of expression has persisted for a long time. Some claim they are incompatible, while many think their sectors are completely unrelated and cannot be reconciled.
Though reaching a decision is unavoidably required because these rights are crucial to the advancement of society. The first case before the ECHR addressing French copyright law and freedom of speech and expression was Ashby Donald and Others v. France. Even if the case was not proven, the court made it clear that unauthorized duplication of content that is shielded by copyright will be viewed as a restriction on the right to free speech.
The Indian Constitution’s Article 19 guarantees the right to free speech and expression, but it also places some limitations on it. Here, it is crucial to note that one of the limitations on the fundamental right to free speech and expression is not copyright. Until and unless someone does not want to copy from another person’s work, the expression of an idea is what is protected by copyright law; copyright does not appear to infringe upon the fundamental freedom of speech and expression that is granted under the Constitution of India.
Ethical Considerations in the Digital Age
The advent of digital technology has greatly accelerated information distribution at a speed and accuracy never before possible. Today, it is much easier to distribute literary, artistic, and scientific works to a large audience of Internet users and other consumers of electronic media. It offers multiple conundrums and intellectual hurdles at the same time. Both individuals and organizations must navigate the turbulent terrain of copyright laws and creativity in the rapidly changing world of digital technology.
The rise of the internet has revolutionized the way we produce, distribute, and use content, necessitating a critical and continuous review of the application of intellectual property rules in the digital domain. “The Internet has revived the read-write culture that copyright law was invented to support,” famous American lawyer Lawrence Lessig famously said. However, the shift that made it possible for the generation of digital natives to become producers as opposed to merely consumers has also put copyright law to the test in ways that were unthinkable in the days before the internet.
Rapid technical progress has led to a perpetual crossfire between old conceptions of copyright and the democratized creativity born of the digital age, resulting in legal disputes and moral conundrums. The traditional limitations of intellectual property rights are being challenged by the cultural movement toward open-source software, fan fiction, multimedia art, and collaborative creativity. This highlights the increasing need for a legal framework that is adaptable enough to this dynamic new context.
The use of copyright in the digital era is a hotly debated area with many ongoing legal disputes that stretch the bounds of the law. Large tech companies like Google and Amazon have long been involved in legal battles over their digitalization of books, while music streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify are still battling the intricate details of music licensing.
These discussions have focused on the idea of “fair use,” a legal theory that allows for the restricted use of copyrighted content without a license. Although “fair use” is meant to encourage artistic expression and originality, its definition and implementation are frequently ambiguous and personal. For example, the emergence of User Generated Content (UGC) platforms like YouTube has led to the emergence of a thriving community of content creators, many of whom use copyrighted sources in their works.
The site, which facilitates the production of memes, remixes, commentary videos, and other content, has become embroiled in ongoing disputes around the definition of “fair use.” The controversial Lenz v. Universal Music Corp case, in which the record label tried to remove a video showing a young child dancing to a Prince Song, generated a lot of debate about the “overreach” of copyright rights and the necessity of a broad definition of fair use. But it’s important to understand that copyright rules exist to safeguard and reward creators.
The digital era increases the channels for innovation and expression, but it also raises the risk of exploitation. In the age of the internet, it is now easier than ever to download illegally, copy content, and commit outright plagiarism, which undermines the hard work and inventiveness of writers, artists, and other creators of all kinds. The vitality of the creative economy is endangered when works are appropriated without giving credit or payment, depriving creators of their inalienable rights. This is the background against which the contentious EU Article 13, also known as “the meme ban,” is set.
Although the regulation was criticized for perhaps suppressing internet humour, its main goal was to ensure that authors whose works were being utilized extensively without adequate attribution or payment. Maintaining the inclusiveness that fosters the creativity of the digital age while defending the rights of creators is still a difficult task that faces opposition from both corporate giants and the general people. It is clear from this disorganized dance between creativity and copyright that a one-size-fits-all strategy is inadequate. It is essential to take a thoughtful, flexible stance that respects the creativity and labour of individual artists while also appreciating the importance of a common culture.
A more complex, equitable, and inclusive approach might be achieved by taking inspiration from grassroots projects like Creative Commons, which grants authors a wider range of rights, and the “copy left” movement, which permits the reuse and modification of works under certain restrictions. These efforts are a creative step in the right direction toward resolving the conflict between the necessity for fair recompense and acknowledgment for creators and the intrinsically shared nature of digital products.
It is necessary to revaluate traditional copyright rules for the digital age in order to successfully negotiate this maze of invention and copyright. Through the promotion of continuous communication between legislators, artists, tech firms, and consumers, we can still achieve progress toward a just and motivating digital ecosystem. In the meanwhile, it is our duty as creators and users to work toward the thoughtful and conscientious use of digital resources, encouraging a culture that values creativity and innovation regardless of the medium.
CHALLANGES
Copyright protection has faced many difficulties in the digital age. It could be challenging to determine what is appropriate, to what extent, and what constitutes infringement in the digital age. Fair use may permit minor infractions that do not violate the owner’s rights. It can be challenging to judge, understand fair use, manage copyright law infractions, and handle access when it comes to digital content. It is almost never possible for the owner of a copyright to find out who has used their creation.
The copyright laws in this situation need to be changed. Copyright protection should promote creativity rather than limit the use of knowledge. One of the primary obstacles is Monitoring
Problems. It might be challenging to monitor the usage of intellectual property in digital age. It is practically hard to keep track of who is using a digital copy and why once it is uploaded online because it can be downloaded and shared multiple times. Exorbitant Enforcement
Costs In the digital age, copyright rules can be expensive and time-consuming to enforce.
It can be challenging to find instances of copyright infringement and bring legal action against individuals involved due to the volume of content that is available online. Global Reach Since information may travel far in the digital era, it can be challenging to enforce copyright rules in many nations with various legal systems. Reasonable Use This idea permits limited usage of content covered by copyright without requesting consent from the copyright owner. However, it can be challenging and subjective to decide what is fair usage, which makes copyright rules challenging to enforce.
Content Created by Users the proliferation of social media and other user-generated content platforms has made it easier than ever for people to produce and distribute their own material. This might make it more challenging to enforce copyright rules and identify the owner of the copyright to a certain work. Access and Protection in Balance It is crucial to strike a balance between the needs of information access and creative expression and copyright protection.
Finding the ideal balance between protection and accessibility in the digital age.
RESOLUTIONS
A) Management of Digital Rights (DRM) it’s a technique that limits access to digital material and stops unlawful copies and distribution. It can be used to prevent the illegal downloading of copyrighted media, including music, movies, and E- Books.
B) The technique of adding a distinctive identify to digital content, such as pictures or movies, is called watermarking. It can be used to identify information, find its source, and put an end to unauthorized use.
C) Copyright Instruction encouraging the appropriate use of copyrighted materials and educating users about copyright laws and the repercussions of copyright infringement are two ways to reduce the frequency of piracy.
D) Creative Commons Authorization Authors can use a range of free, standardized licenses offered by the non-profit Creative Commons to allow others to use their copyrighted works. These licenses let content creators maintain ownership of their creations while allowing third parties, subject to the license’s conditions, to use them in a variety of ways.
E) To design and implement efficient copyright protection solutions, collaborative content protection necessitates bringing together a variety of stakeholders, including publishers, technology suppliers, content creators, and legal experts. When these parties collaborate, they may be able to create more thorough and potent answers to the problems that copyright protection in the digital age presents.
F) Guidelines for Fair Use Certain uses of copyright-protected content are legal even without the owner’s consent. However, depending on the situation and the relevant legislation, the definition of fair use may be arbitrary and subjective. While protecting the rights of copyright holders, the development of thorough and detailed fair use rules can aid in the promotion of the moral use of information protected by copyright.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, copyright protection in the digital age has faced numerous difficulties. However, new tools and technologies have emerged to help publishers and content creators safeguard their rights. Policies can be put in place to solve challenges brought about by the digital era by putting measures like watermarking, digital rights management, and user education regarding copyright laws into practice.
Achieving a balance between protection and accessibility is crucial, and copyright protection must be monitored as quickly evolving technologies impact it. We can keep encouraging innovation, creativity, and the ethical use of protected commodities in the digital era by putting the required protections in place.
REFERENCE
- I Muhammad (2023). Communal intellectual property in the digital age: Exploring the relevance, regulation, and impact of creative commons licenses, Indonesian Law Journal, 16(1), 39-62, Available at: https://ejournal.bphn.go.id/index.php/ILJ/article/view/127/68
- R Wierma Putri, Y Maya Putri, M Muhammad and T Tristyanto (2022). The legal protection towards traditional clothes: Intellectual property regimes in ASEAN, Substantive Justice International Journal of Law, 5(1), 49-68, Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.56087/substantivejustice.v5i1.165
- K Ann Burch, D Nafus, K Legun and L Klerkx (2022). Intellectual property meets transdisciplinary co-design: prioritizing responsiveness in the production of new AdTech through located response-ability, Agriculture and Human Values, 40, 455- 474, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10378-
- P Vimalnath, F Tietze, A Jain, et al (2022). Intellectual property strategies for green innovations – An analysis of the European Inventor Awards, Journal of Cleaner Production, 377, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134325
- E Lee (2022). NFTs as decentralized intellectual property, University of Illinois Law Review, 23, Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4023736
- Varaprasada Rao and S Kumar Panda (2023), A Design Model of Copyright Protection System Based on Distributed Ledger Technology. In: Satapathy, S.C., Lin,
- CW, Wee, L.K., Bhateja, V., Rajesh, T.M. Editors. Computer Communication, Networking and IoT, Springer; Singapore, 127-141, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1976-3_17
- Daniel J. Gervais, “How Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights: Can Live Together: An updated Perspective” inPaul L.C Torremans, Intellectual Property Law and Human Rights 3-26 (Wolters Kluwer, 2008).
- Vandana Mahalwar, “Copyright and Human Rights: The Quest for fair Balance” in Manoj Kumar Sinha & Vandana Mahalwar, Copyright Law in the Digital World 151-174 (Springer, 2017)
- Available at: http://assets.wwfindia.org/downloads/human_rights__ipr_in_trips_era_3.pdf (last visited on Nov.20, 2018).
- Nr. 36769/08.5Krisjan Buss, “Copyright and Free Speech: The Human Rights Perspective”, 8(2) Baltic Journal of Law and Politics (2015).
- CS/OS 2439/2012.
- AIR 1989 SC 190.
- Available at: http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/33710/5/chapter5.pdf (last visited on Nov. 20, 2018).
- Caterina Sganga, “Right to Culture and Copyright: Participation and Access”, in C. Gieger (ed.) Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property 560-576 (Edward Elgar, 2015), available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol13/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2602690 (last visited on Dec. 12, 2018).
Author Bio
