This Article has been written by Ms. Simran Pathan, a Third-year student of Balaji Law College, Pune
Abstract: The primary component of intellectual property, copyright refers to an author’s exclusive ownership to his or her written works, performances, or other creative endeavors. The strict enforcement of this regulation will inhibit free creativity and artistic expression in society. This article attempts to examine the legal status of parody, which entails removing content from the original work, as well as the tension that exists between copyright and free expression. A parody fails and becomes disputed if the target of the parody is not identifiable. The courts now have to strike a difficult balance between these two rights. The degree to which copyright impedes free expression is examined in this research.Furthermore, by citing a few case laws, it contends that parody does not violate the public figures’ right to publicity. In order to provide more protection for parodies, it also makes certain recommendations, including adding defences for freedom of speech and the public interest. Finally, by highlighting several clauses in the Copyright Law,
Introduction: The Greek language is where the term “parody” first appeared. It was known as paroidia, a combination of the words “para” (beside) and “ode” (song). Poetry parodies were the only kind allowed in the past. Nonetheless, parodies have a large following nowadays. The term “parody” describes art which plays fun of or exposes the shortcomings of previous works in order to criticize, mock, or humiliate them. As a definition, a parody necessitates that the viewer be aware of both the original work and the manner in which it is criticized and mocked. Because of this, it is said that a parody borrows from and is reliant upon the original work.
on the other hand, The idea behind the copyright notion of fair use is that parts of copyrighted content should be openly used by the general public for commentary and criticism. For instance, you should be able to cite a part of a writer’s work without obtaining approval if you want to critique the writer of a novel. In the absence of this flexibility, copyright holders may suppress any criticism related to their creations.However, a legal proceeding or dispute resolution may be necessary to settle the matter if the copyright owner disagrees with your assessment of fair use. If it’s not a fair use, you are violating the copyright holder’s rights and can face repercussions.
According to Section 52(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act,1957. a fair dealing with any work, not being a computer programme, for the purpose of criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work.
In line with Indian law, this idea complies with the TRIPS Agreement’s Article 13 and the Berne Convention’s exclusions. “Fair Use” defends parodies if they survive this criteria and find widespread usage.
Parody: Fair Use Or Violation
The widespread adoption of the internet has led to the prevalence and accessibility of parodies of songs, movies, stage plays, and other media. They are now a significant source of income for those who create them as well as amusement for those who watch them. The rise of social media has given the parodists access to a wider and more well-liked platform on which to present what they have created.
Parodies are by definition seen as plagiarized works. Without copying portions of the original piece of art, a parody artist is unable to create the original piece. Parodies, on the other hand, are not meant to rival the original work. They don’t want to do financial harm to the original work and instead compete in an entirely separate market. Instead, parodies broaden the audience for the original work because those who are not aware of the ideology that a parody is critiquing are more likely to watch the original work because of the flaws that the parody discusses.
However, as previously noted, parodists cannot assert the defence of legitimate use if their works of art clearly mimic the original work; this would therefore be considered infringement.
Copyright and Parody
No one owns copyright on an idea, according to the general copyright theory. Themes, movie storylines, and subject matter are all free of copyright until they have been fixed and embodied in physical media. It can be challenging to distinguish between innovative critique and imitation in parody situations where the source is a unique creation.
When creating a parody, it’s important to keep in mind that for this kind of use to qualify as fair dealing, the new work cannot take the place of the work that was originally created. Consequently, neither the parody nor the original work’s reputation may be damaged or degraded, nor can the work that was copied from the unique work’s financial failure. We frequently see parodies of songs, movies, and other media websites such as YouTube, all of which are safeguarded by the act as long as certain guidelines are adhered to.
Doctrine of Fair Use
One concept in US copyright law is fair use. To put it plainly, fair use is the act of reproducing or copying a work that is protected by copyright without permission from the creator. One of the restrictions on copyright is fair use, which also serves as an argument against permitting some activities that might otherwise be considered copyright infringement. The common law theory of fair use continued to be applied in numerous situations even before it was codified under section 17 section 107 of the copyright act of 1976. Rather than presenting a limited list of objectives specifying the range of activities that may be considered fair dealing, Section 17 offers an unrestricted list of reasons that may be considered fair use.
The Indian courts came to the conclusion that the particulars of every case should be taken into consideration while making decisions about fair dealing. The Indian judiciary has recognized the validity of applying the US principle to Indian matters in its rulings.
A Parody That Belongs in Indian Cinema
The most well-known instance is the obsolete comedy group All India Bakchod and Yash Raj Films. The latter group contacted the former in November 2013 for a parody of the Dhoom 3 action thriller’s teaser, which starred Aamir Khan. However, YRF declined to provide its consent. As a reaction, AIB recorded the difficulties encountered when creating a parody in India.
“Rasode Me Kaun tha,” featuring our very own Kokilaben and Gopi bahu, is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most popular iconic videos that the majority of people have seen on social media during these COVID times. The brief YouTube clip, which was created by Indian music producer, composer, and social media star Yashraj Mukhate, became viral in a matter of hours and experienced viewers laughing uncontrollably. With numerous millions of views and enormous profits for the maker, the debate of what constitutes parody and what is an infringement of copyright always surfaces concerning films like this.
In this particular instance, the video is an alteration of a conversation or exchange among the performers from the original Star India Pvt Ltd series “Saath Nibhaana Saathiya,” a well-known Indian television series. In determining whether this tape constitutes an infringement of copyright or parody, the copyright statute is crucial.
Parodies are that genre of humour that allows us to experience and appreciate our favourite dramas, songs, and movies in a different manner. They have a long history dating back years. A parody is a mockery or imitation that purposefully exaggerates a certain subject or target for humorous effect. Irony, comedy, and satire are used in parodies to make fun of or criticize their subjects. Parody films are often not offensive provided they are created fairly and don’t damage the feelings of any particular person or group, despite the fact that critics frequently ignore this subgenre. There’s a question that makes us hunt through our minds in the music and film industry that drives us to something that deserves to be mentioned here. The list of the few well-known parody songs and films are as follows:
The AIB video “The Bollywood Diva Song,” which featured Kangana Ranaut and was released back in 2017, is undoubtedly one of the most audacious undertakings in which a Bollywood actor has ever participated. Furthermore, not everyone enjoys parodying
a song with the chorus “Coz I Have Vagina Re.” In addition to that, each and every word in this song addresses a variety of issues
Kangana believes are flawed in the industry. As everyone is aware, Kangana has appeared in the news a lot because she’s been conducting talks. This video will definitely have you laughing till you cry since it not only features some of the funniest references to Bollywood’s best-kept secrets, but it also has an extremely mock-funny tone which makes it beyond humorous.
Shera wali mata beda paar laga do (Salil Jamdar) – Rapper “Badshah”‘s song “DJ Waley Babu” has probably been played at every party in your vicinity during the past few months. It’s about time for the same song with a Bhajan twist now. Yes, this is a
jagrata DJ song featuring the customary Badshah-mimicking verse.
Few demo lines go like:
O ambey maiyya meri bigdi de banaa
Sabko khilaungi main puri halwa
Shera wali mata beda paar laga do
paar laga do paar laga do.
The Lal Singh Chadda Spoof – The Lal Singh Chadda is a Bollywood movie starring Amir Khan, in which a man with a low IQ, recounts the early years of his life to a passenger on a train. Now, his only wish is to be reunited with his childhood sweetheart, Rupa.A parody sketch of this such movie was made by the A YouTube comedy group called ‘The Screen Patti” which shows the journey of An Ordinary graduate Indian whose berozgaari bhari journey will fill you with disappointment and joblessness. Watch Berozgaar Singh Chaddha’s not so beautiful journey. Although it is a parody of the original film but still It’s impossible to spoof a trailer scene by scene, while making every scene damn funny and at the same time giving a strong social message in just 4
Mins.
Dangal Movie Spoof – The film Dangal is based on the true story of Mahavir Singh Phogat, a former wrestler who, in defiance of social stigmas, chooses to train his daughters for the Commonwealth Games in order to accomplish his dream of winning
a gold medal for his nation. While the Parody sketch of this iconic movie made by a YouTube comedy group called ‘Shudh Desi Ending’ is not less funny at all, it was by far the most logical and hilarious animated parody video you can watch online. There are a great number of Parodies are available online now a days in this era of technology,what’s important is that the fair use of dialogues and lines used in the sketch so that itis not offensive in nature to any individual or group.
Legal Interpretations
It is crucial to establish clear criteria to differentiate between fair dealing and infringement since there is a fine line between criticism or review of a work and its copying.
TV Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd vs Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd & Super Cassette Ltd, 21 August, 2012
The first instance of fair dealing was in the Indian case of India TV Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd vs Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd & Super Cassette Ltd, in which the defendant “India TV” aired a show that followed the journey of a singer while also showing movie clips. The defendant said that this use of copyrightable material amounts to fair dealing under section 52 of the act, in contrast to the plaintiff’s contention that it amounts to infringement. The court ruled that the defendant was not permitted to utilize the material since it was not included in the comprehensive list stipulated in section 52.
Civic Chandran v/s C. Ammini Amma (1996) 16 PTC 329
Famous writer Thoppil Bhasi wrote a drama in Civic Chandran v. Amminu Amma in 1952 that was well received and performed several times. On the basis of this play, the defendant created a counter-dramas in 1995, which India Today published in Malayalam. Because the defendant included many significant elements of the piece of work, involving a character duplication, it was claimed that he had violated copyright. After a scene-by-scene analysis of both plays, the Court concluded that the counter-drama’s true goal was to critique the play’s philosophy rather than to misappropriate it. As a result, the Court decided that there had been no first evidence of infringement against the defendant.
Pepsi Co. v . Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd 2001 PTC 699 (Del)
Nonetheless, in certain instances, the judiciary has determined that a parody violates an individual’s copyright. The court agreed that the defendant’s commercial was a copy of the plaintiff’s commercial, which constituted copyright infringement and prohibited the defendant’s commercial from airing in the Pepsi Co. v. Hindustan Coca-Cola Ltd case, which involved Coca-Cola’s parody of Pepsi’s Yeh Dil Maange More commercial.
Whiley Eastern Ltd v. Indian Institute of Management 1995 IVAD Delhi 990, 61 (1996)
DLT 281, 1995 (35) DRJ 522
The court linked fair dealing under Section 52 with the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution in the Whiley Eastern Ltd v. Indian Institute of Management.It held that fair dealing must be included in the Copyright Act in order to allow for the freedom of research, private study, criticism, review, and reporting of current events.
Shri Ashwani Dhir v The State of Bihar AIR 2005 Pat 101, 2005 (1) BLJR 342
In the case of Shri Ashwani Dhir v The State of Bihar, the Patna High Court ruled that the producers of a TV series that made fun of Bihar’s then-chief minister, Lalu Prasad Yadav, were entitled to protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and that any restrictions placed on the series’ airing would violate the fundamental right to free speech and expression.
CONCLUSION
Beyond a doubt, “fair dealing” is an essential concept for copyright laws as well as for bolstering the protections afforded to Indian residents by Article 19 of the Constitution. However, compared to US fair dealing regulations, which are more detailed and maintan a flexible approach, Indian fair dealing laws are quite constrained. Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act displays a cautious approach, maybe due to the legislators’ desire for more clarity in the laws. The author here would like to argue that, despite the judiciary’s occasional adoption of the US strategy in their rulings, the entire defence of fair dealing that exists in our nation has not yet been looked at heightened and clarified.
References : This Article was originally written by and published on the following websites. The link for the same is herein
- https://www.theippress.com/2021/07/28/parody-as-defense-in-copyright-dispute/
- https://legalthirst.com/not-so-funny-parody-and-fair-dealing-by-maitrayee-sinha/?doing_wp_cron=1700314018.8839828968048095703125
- https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/copyright-protection-for-slogans-4417.asp
- https://www.legalogy.in/concept-of-fair-use-under-copyright-law/
Title of the book, Law Relating to INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, Name of Author-Dr. V K Ahuja, ISBN Number : 978-81-3125-165-2,Third Edition 2017
CASE LAWS:
- TV Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd vs Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd & Super Cassette Ltd, 21 August, 2012
- Civic Chandran v/s C. Ammini Amma (1996) 16 PTC 329
- Pepsi Co. v . Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd 2001 PTC 699 (Del)
- Whiley Eastern Ltd v. Indian Institute of Management 1995 IVAD Delhi 990, 61 (1996)
- Shri Ashwani Dhir v The State of Bihar AIR 2005 Pat 101, 2005 (1) BLJR 342