Applicability
and brief study of Hot News Doctrine
Meaning
of Hot- News Doctrine:
The concept of Hot News
Doctrine is the creation of modern business world and the importance of
particular news at a particular point of Time. The important News and Live
events televised around the world can be protected through this doctrine.
The “Hot News” doctrine refers
to a very specific aspect of copyright. Copyright, a legal doctrine with a long
tradition, involves legal protections for works that have been published, for
which there is clear authorship, and the economic value of which does not
recede over short periods of time.
Applicability of Hot
News Doctrine in INDIA:
M/s.
Marksman Marketing Private Limited v. Bharti Tele-Ventures Limited, 2006,
popularly known as “Marksman Case”.
The Hot News Doctrine had not earlier been applied by the Indian judiciary.
Since the judgment of the Madras High Court in 2006, the Doctrine of Hot News
has become more prominent in India’s copyright landscape and is likely to
develop further as business in “Hot News” expands.
CORAM:
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI
WAZIRI
Facts of the Case:
The facts of the present case
are as follow:
1. Star India Pvt. Ltd. (Star)
filed three suits against Piyush Agarwal (Cricbuzz), Idea Cellular (“Idea”) and
OnMobile Global Ltd. (“ONMOBILE”). The Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI)
was grouped as the common defendant in all the three cases.
2. BCCI, however, supported Star,
claiming paramount rights over all information emanating from cricketing events
as the organizer and promoter of that sport in India.
3. Star and BCCI contended in the
suit that the latter (BCCI) by agreement dated 10.08.2012 had assigned a “bouquet
of rights‟ exclusively to Star. These
included “Mobile Rights‟ and “Mobile Activation Rights‟, and Star alleged that the defendants had
violated those rights and consequently filed the suits currently in question
for permanent injunction and damages.
4. The defendants resisted Star’s
claims and asserted that such rights claimed by it did not exist, and as there
was no question of enforcement of a non-existent right, no relief could be
granted. Before the learned Single Judge, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA the
defendants (Piyush Agarwal and Ors.) contentions were rejected and the
ad-interim injunction sought was granted. (Decision dated 13-03-2013)
Brief summary of the order of
Division Bench of Delhi High Court:
Ø
Direct
Competitors:
Court
held that when the both parties are direct competitors then only doctrine of
“Hot News” can be apply. It cannot be merely apply where the plaintiff's
primary service or product is not hot news distribution, but match organisation
or broadcasting of those events. In the present case respondent is failed to
show to the court, how it had proprietary rights over the facts and
information. As neither Star, nor BCCI engaged themselves primarily in match
news distribution through SMS. So in the instant case “International News Service vs.
Associated Press” rule doesn't apply.
In
view of the above discussion, it was held by the court “that the plaintiffs
claim for ad interim injunction on all counts, i.e. ownership of facts based on
the “hot news” principle and the claims for unfair competition and unjust
enrichment cannot be granted. Prima facie, it is also held that claims so made
are statutorily precluded. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge has to be set aside and court allows the all three appeals”.
(for more information regarding this case please click here.)
Thanks
ReplyDelete