You can grab other case briefs on other IPR topics from here.
(2002) 63 DRJ 558
Facts: Mr. Amar Nath Sehgal is the world-renowned sculpturist and has been conferred with several awards for his beautiful creations and contribution to the Indian heritage. In the year 1957, the Government of India commissioned Mr. Sehgal for the creating bronze mural for the most prominent International Convention Hall in the Capital of the Country. The Bronze sculpture of about 140ft. span and 40ft. sweep took five years to complete and was placed on the wall of the Lobby in the Convention hall. This embellishment on a national architecture became a part of the Indian art heritage.
In the year 1979 when government pulled down the sculpture from the walls of ‘Vigyan Bhawan’ and dumped it in the storeroom. When Mr. Sehgal came to know of this ill treatment, he made representations to the government authorities for restoration of the mural. Unfortunately, all his pleas fell on deaf ears. Aggrieved by the apathy of the government officials, Mr. Seghal filed a petition in the Delhi High Court for recognition and enforcement of his rights on the mural.
Laws involved:Section 57 of the Copyright Act.
Issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff (Amar nath Sehgal) is entitled to the special rights u/s 57 of the Copyright Act even after the copyrights are vested in the interest of the defendants?
2) Whether there are any damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the said work, which is done before the expiration of the term of copyright?
Analysis: The work of art or any work which have some kind of creativity involved also have some kind of sentiments or the sense of ownership attached to it. These moral values should always be respected. Special rights u/s 57 of the Copyright Act are very important laws, which give the rights to the author or any person who makes anything to claim the damages against any kind of distortion, mutilation or modification without the consent of the author. This is the landmark case in which the moral rights were considered.
The judgment states that these rights are independent of the author’s copyright. They exist even after the assignment of the copyright, either wholly or partially. Secondly, The court stated that the defendants moved the mural without the prior permission of the author and in addition to it the mural was also damaged from the corners. The mural was moved away from the public view, which clearly shows that it was prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation.
Judgment: The Court held that the mural whatever be its form today is too precious to be reduced to scrap and languish in the warehouse of the Government of India. It is only Mr. Sehgal who has the right to recreate his work and therefore has the right to receive the broken down mural. He also has the right to be compensated for the loss of reputation, honor and mental injury due to the offending acts of UOI”.
The Court passed mandatory injunction against the UOI directing it to return the mural to Mr. Sehgal within two weeks from the date of judgment. Court passed a declaration transferring all the rights over the mural from UOI to Mr. Sehgal and an absolute right to recreate the mural and sell the same. The Court also granted damages to the tune of Rs.5 lacs and cost of suit to Mr. Sehgal against UOI.
Conclusion: The Court favored the plaintiff and stated that the defendants are liable to pay the damages and also to return the mural to its author. The Court also stated that prior permission should always be taken before taking any such action.
You can grab other case briefs on other IPR topics from here.
