Authors) and Artist(s) can only be the Natural Person(s). Herein the dilemma ensues and how the TRIPS may be in the direct collusion with respect to the Territorial Laws of different lands. I’ll discuss that one by one hereinafter. But first, in short, the equations:
1. Author(s) == Natural Person(s). and;
2. Natural Person(s).equals (!Entity).
Now, one might have heard that in the U.S. Copyright Laws, an Organization may become the Author under the Hire Doctrine, OR, Work Made For Hire, as that’s an exception cited therein in the definition of Author! While the organization(s) being the Applicant(s), at the same time can end up becoming Author(s) of the work, as well as the Owners, under the above Hire-Doctrine.
Now my problem is not with the organizations or legal entities becoming the owners of any work under the said doctrine, because this is their legit & legal right. My problem comes when the above equations are put to the litmus test or kept aside while defining a Natural Person(s).
Unlike other or at most of the places, wherein, the Author(s) can only be considered as the Natural Person(s) proving the above equations first, and then, NOCs are needed relinquishing their rights of ownership, bestowing it to the Applicant(s), which in the present case would be the company as Applicant, for whom the Author(s) has/have completed the work entrusted, in return of the any remuneration! Nothing Wrong! But if we compare this analogy to the inventors in Patents, the organizations cannot become the Inventors, even under the Hire- Doctrine! Dilemma, on a Massie Scale!
Further, take this scenario! In the case of inventions, the organization is required to disclose the names of the actual inventor(s), while the company being the Applicant or Assignee or Legal entity of the Patent. But when it comes to the Copyright, why this concept of Natural Person is not implemented at some places? And if this is permissible, then why DABUS was denied its rights of being both Applicant & Inventor at the same time? And if Company can become the Author as a separate entity while not being a Natural Person, then why cannot AI itself become the Author of the work it has created?
And if in case the law is recognizing organizations as the Author(s), then eventually, the law may also recognize the Companies as the Inventors as well, under the ambit of Hire-Doctrine, which would be wrong!
Thus, the need for Author(s) being Natural Person(s) is correct, and if not, then it changes the matrix as defined above. We cannot bring the aspects of the Trademarks or Design Laws herein into consideration. Means, we never say that the Inventor is the Proprietor of the Invention, rather, being considered merely as an Inventor.
And yes, when it comes to the cinematography, then it is to the extent justifiable for a Producer of the cinematography film, becoming an Author, for certain reasons I’ll discuss in another blog.
So, we must make changes in TRIPS / Paris / Berne Convention explicitly, to resolve this dilemma; else this conundrum remains unresolved!
Furthermore, in the Copyrights Act, it is clearly written that, the Author(s) cannot relinquish certain rights bestowed to them vide Authorship, despite being Assigned vide the Assignment Agreement.
But in the absence of the Authorship wherein organization(s) becoming Natural Person(s), how would you determine the Moral Rights of an individual Author? Just alike how would you determine the inventorship of the Inventor in the absence of the Inventorship rights itself?
The Owner(s) / Applicant(s) must be segregated from the Author(s), Artist(s), Inventor(s), unless and until, the Owner(s) / Applicant(s) are themselves the Author(s) or the Inventor(s) of the same.
Here’s one more conundrum. What would be the remedy, if the Author(s) itself is a firm or an organization, that worked on behalf of another organization? In such cases, whose name(s) as the Author(s) should appear? Should there be then cascading NOCs?
Am I missing something! 😊
© Pranav Chaturvedi
No comments:
Post a Comment