Justice Singh said ignoring the existence of such rogue websites could result in “curtailing and stifling creativity” itself as the creation of this content involves enormous investments, the collaborative work of various creative people such as authors, lyricists, singers, actors, dancers, musicians, etc. The court said once such applications are filed before the Registrar, along with an affidavit with sufficient supporting evidence “seeking extension of the injunction to such websites” to protect the studios’ content, including their future work, “the injunction shall become operational against the said websites and qua such works”. The court granted the studios liberty to file an appropriate application seeking protection for their copyrighted works, “including future works”, if the need arises. 1 to 16, either based on the name, branding, identity or even source of content, by filing an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC in the event such websites merely provide new means of accessing the same primary infringing websites that have been injuncted,” the HC said. 1 to 16 including those websites which are associated with the Defendants Nos. “The Plaintiffs are permitted to implead any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variations of the websites identified in the suit as Defendants Nos. ![]() Justice Singh said that such an injunction is being issued to “protect copyrighted works as soon as they are created, to ensure that no irreparable loss is caused to the authors and owners of copyrighted works, as there is an imminent possibility of works being uploaded on rogue websites or their newer versions immediately upon the films/shows/series, etc.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |