Nt1310 Unit 2 Section 2
Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines the term “author” in the context of several copyrightable works. Section 2(d) (VI) states that in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created shall be the author. The definition in itself doesn’t provide for the legal personality of the author. Imagine a situation wherein a painting app has been created by a robot? Who would be the author here? The person who has owns the robot or the one who programmed this robot or the user who generates something new through this application?
The intention behind adding this provision was to move forward with the ever evolving technology and encompass all sorts of situations that may arise in future. …show more content…
Human skill can also be found in the person who enters information into a program in order to achieve a specific result. The implication is that there is minimal or no human input in creating the work, an example being weather forecasts generated by a computer which is in direct communication with a weather satellite.
In the U.S. Monkey selfie case, in December 2014, the United States Copyright Office stated that works that are created by a non-human are not a subject matter of US copyright. Keeping in mind the existing provision in India there seems to be no justification for non-human works.
The basic element for a work to be a subject matter of copyright is for it to have some sort of creativity or labour. In Eastern Book Company v. Modak, the Court held that for a claim copyright, the author must produce a material with “exercise of his skill and judgment” which may not be creativity in the sense that it is not novel or non-obvious, but at the same time it is not the product of merely labour and
The intention behind adding this provision was to move forward with the ever evolving technology and encompass all sorts of situations that may arise in future. …show more content…
Human skill can also be found in the person who enters information into a program in order to achieve a specific result. The implication is that there is minimal or no human input in creating the work, an example being weather forecasts generated by a computer which is in direct communication with a weather satellite.
In the U.S. Monkey selfie case, in December 2014, the United States Copyright Office stated that works that are created by a non-human are not a subject matter of US copyright. Keeping in mind the existing provision in India there seems to be no justification for non-human works.
The basic element for a work to be a subject matter of copyright is for it to have some sort of creativity or labour. In Eastern Book Company v. Modak, the Court held that for a claim copyright, the author must produce a material with “exercise of his skill and judgment” which may not be creativity in the sense that it is not novel or non-obvious, but at the same time it is not the product of merely labour and