We argue that the judgment is jurisprudentially and legally unsound on holding Section 52(1)(i) to be a controlling norm rather than a limited exception. We are of the view that the judgment perilously intruded into the shores of judicial legislation, enervating the foundations of Rule of Law which forms an essential facet of Article 14 of the Constitution.
There is the necessity of a provision that would determine to which extent the reproduction of copyrighted material would not amount to infringement of copyright law for the educational purpose, till then everyone can claim relief against infringement of copyright work.
All modern copyright systems provide for circumstances in which copyright will not be infringed by the unauthorized reproduction
…show more content…
The effect of this approach is such that any use which a court deems to be ‘fair’ will be treated as non-infringing. This is known as the defence of “fair use”. The United States, for example, leans towards this approach.
The second approach, evolved in United Kingdom, includes providing a large number of much more specific exceptions, encompassing carefully defined activities (more of a ‘pigeon-hole’ concept). If the respective use a) falls within the defined exceptions; and b) is fair, then “fair dealing” applies. The copyright laws of Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa use “fair dealing”. Unlike the related doctrine of “fair use”, “fair dealing” cannot apply to any act which does not fall within one of these categories.
The third approach is to set out certain “enumerated exceptions” without any qualification such as “fairness”. It is more of an unequivocal exception. The fourth approach is to use a hybrid model. Singapore, for instance, uses a hybrid model encompassing “fair dealing” and “fair
…show more content…
It is not a case of (sometimes criticised, sometimes admired) dynamic interpretation since the judgment did not even attempt to reason out the fine distinctions and nuances concerning “fair dealing”, “fair use” and “enumerated exceptions”. The judgment, in fact, went beyond the realms of extant jurisprudential understanding without even discussing them especially when precedents are binding in a common law jurisdiction like India. Of course, the judiciary in India is free to take an altogether different path in jurisprudence and interpretation. But it should be mandatorily based on reason. Reason pervades the Indian polity, thanks to Constitutionalism and Rule of Law.
Further, the judgment is silent on the ambit of private use exception i.e copying of books by students in the course of instruction. As to this extent, the judgment has a chilling effect on evaluating the realistic implications. As to summarise, we we are of the view that the judgment put the cart before the horse. And it is not legally and jurisprudentially sound. Therefore, the publishers have a strong case in appeal
The students were sent home and suspended until they returned to school without the armbands. The District Court originally ruled that the school authorities’ fear of disturbance was reasonable enough to warrant the suspension of the students. The Supreme Court however, stated that fear is not enough to overcome an individual’s right to freedom
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Mapp case various other cases such as U.S v. Leon the “good faith” exception in 1984 and Nix v. Williams the inevitable discovery rule of 1984 have helped to modify the exclusionary rule handed down by the U.S Supreme Court stating that the original ruling interfered too much with the work of police officers (Pearson
In the “Bethel School District v. Fraser” case, Fraser believed that the school violated his first amendment “freedom of speech” rights. Fraser gave a speech with some inappropriate content in it and the school gave him a three day suspension because two teachers warned him before he gave the speech. Fraser took it to court and the justices said they would shorten the suspension and let him have his right to speak at graduation because the school was taking away his freedom of speech.
An arguable case must be illustrated, indicating clearly their case has grounds and a reasonable chance of
The court approved the administrative law judges decision and granted a summary judgment against the school
Rule: The Court held 5-4 that no the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing, at or across the street from a school-supervised event, student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting
In the case Brewer vs. Hamilton Middle School the Supreme Court had to decide if the school had the right to limit Ben Brewer’s first amendment right to free speech. The school had decided to add a rule to the school dress code to ban students from wearing T-shirts that depict musical groups. Ben came into school after the rule had been enacted wearing a T-shirt that depicted Hall of Rejects which is a musical group. He was given the option to flip the shirt inside out and refused to. Mr. Brewer was then given a week of in-school suspension.
The court also had to consider the concept of fair use, which allows the use of copyrighted material for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. However, fair use is a subjective and context-dependent doctrine that requires a case-by-case evaluation of several factors, such as the purpose, nature, amount, and effect of the use on the original
The Supreme Court emphasized the learning benefits from a diverse student body. This ruling was also a win for people that are against racial preference. The ruling said, “Courts must consider whether such preferences are narrowly tailored to achieving their educational goals
Judge Fortas insisted that under the Constitution, the students possessed fundamental rights to express their opinion as people of America. On the other hand, Judge Black rebutted:” I think the record overwhelmingly shows that the armbands did exactly what the elected school officials and principals foresaw they would, that is, took the students ' mind off their classwork and diverted them to thoughts about the highly emotional subject of Vietnam war. if the time has come when pupils of state- supported schools can defy and flout orders of school officials to keep their minds on their own work, It is the beginning of a new revolutionary era of permissiveness in this country fostered be the judiciary.” Judge Black has entirely different view with what the school authorities had done to students wearing armbands. He justified the prohibition of armband for wearing them would distract the students ' minds.
In which Fraser gave an inappropriate speech which contained perverted and inferred sexual words in his speech to try an get one of his friends into office, but got suspended and was no longer allowed to speak at graduation. According to document E it says “Bethel school district acted within its permissible authority in imposing sanctions on Fraser after his inappropriate speech”. This quote shows students are limited to what they can say and can't really speak their minds without restrictions therefore this shows that this case restricts the 1st amendment rights of students even though the U.S promotes freedom of speech but nevertheless there are others way to speak without using indecent words and also it was within a place of learning. The court was right to decide in favor of the school because “A high school assembly or classroom is no place for a sexuality explict monologue.(Doc. E)”it was well within parameters of the school to punish him for using obscene and indecent speech at a school event as mentioned in document E earlier “The first Amendment does not prevent the schools officials from determining them to permit a vulgar and lewd speech such as the respondent's would undermine the school’s basic educational
It states that we have freedom of speech. This includes we have the right to read what we want. So if we have the right to read a book or anything why can people take it away from us. We can read what we want, where we want, without having it taken from us, so why do some people think it's acceptable to do just that. We need to teach every one about this so no one makes this mistake.
In her article, “Censorship 101,” West crafts her text through numerous court case experience and skill in rhetorical devices as her background expertise is used to her advantage. Sonja West begins her argument with the use of exemplification in a previous court case. The scene is set in 1962, and West garments the introduction with excessive details and biased language as readers quickly root for the victory of the Tinker case and share the celebratory state of their
This trial is on Walt Disney Studios vs. Faden on the work Professor faden made to inform people on copyright, fair use and infringement. They are battling over copyright and fair use on this video. Walt Disney Studios claims that Faden’s work is copyrighted and is suing for infringement. But Professor Faden claims that he followed all the rules on copyright and he thinks it is fair use. “ Defendence you make take your stands,”The judge says in an assertive voice.
In the said case, the counsel for the appellants tried to argue before the Court of Appeal that the decision in the case Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor was wrong. Because the court was heard in the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal disagreed. It was also