Please try your search again later. Product details Date First Available : 24 Nov. See questions and answers. Customer reviews. How are ratings calculated? Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon.
It also analyses reviews to verify trustworthiness. No customer reviews. Unlimited One-Day Delivery and more. There's a problem loading this menu at the moment. Learn more about Amazon Prime. Back to top. Get to Know Us. Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Audible Download Audiobooks.
DPReview Digital Photography. Shopbop Designer Fashion Brands. Amazon Business Service for business customers. Amazon Second Chance Pass it on, trade it in, give it a second life. You can edit your question or post anyway. Please enter a question. Skip to main content. Add to Cart. Buy Now. Secure transaction. Your transaction is secure. We work hard to protect your security and privacy.
Our payment security system encrypts your information during transmission. Learn more. Image Unavailable Image not available for Colour:. Brand: CHD Garphic. Delivery By: Dec 3 - 4 Details. No-Contact Delivery. Amazon Delivered. No customer signatures are required at the time of delivery. Amazon directly manages delivery for this product. Order delivery tracking to your doorstep is available.
In stock. Printing:High definition quality printing. Size: 18 x 24 Inch Perfect Wall Decor. Decorate your walls or doors at home, office, workplace etc. Have a question? There was a problem completing your request. Please try your search again later.
Your transaction is secure. We work hard to protect your security and privacy. Our payment security system encrypts your information during transmission. Learn more. Image Unavailable Image not available for Colour:. Brand: CHD Garphic.
Delivery By: Dec 3 - 4 Details. No-Contact Delivery. Amazon Delivered. No customer signatures are required at the time of delivery. Amazon directly manages delivery for this product. Order delivery tracking to your doorstep is available. In stock. Printing:High definition quality printing. Size: 18 x 24 Inch Perfect Wall Decor. Decorate your walls or doors at home, office, workplace etc. Have a question? There was a problem completing your request. Please try your search again later.
Save Extra with 3 offers. Product information Technical Details. Color Multicolor Product Dimensions 35 x 45 x 0. Would you like to tell us about a lower price? See questions and answers. Customer reviews. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that copyright is applicable only to the third parties and to the world and not in between the parties who have specifically circumscribed their rights and liabilities by way of a contract.
The learned Counsel would further contend that as per proviso c to Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the respondent will be the owner of the copyright only in the absence of any agreement to the contrary. When the agreement is only for a period of one year, claiming copyright over the cinematograph film beyond one year by the respondent is not sustainable in law.
The learned Counsel would further contend that the learned Single Judge viewed the entire case purely from the angle of the Copyright Act without appreciating the agreement entered into by the parties wherein they have agreed upon specific terms and conditions as a result of which the facts of the case were not properly appreciated. The learned Counsel also brought to our notice the orders passed by the Division Bench, during the pendency of the Suit, when a challenge was made against the dismissal of the injunction application that was filed pending the suit.
This order was also reported in 1 L. W page According to the learned Counsel, the Division Bench of this Court specifically went into the issue as to whether the respondent is entitled to use the profile of the appellant in the audio and video cassettes even beyond the period of one year and held that as per proviso c to Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the emphasis is in the absence of contract to the contrary and therefore when the agreement is only for a period of one year, claiming copyright beyond that period is not permissible.
The learned Counsel contended that the learned Single Judge who was bound by this order of the Division Bench on the question of law erroneously disregarded the same. The learned Counsel would further contend that the contract specifically restricted the appellant from endorsing or acting in an advertisement film of any other hair oil and coconut oil brand for a period of 12 months from the date of the agreement.
When the respondent is in a position to enforce this restriction upon the appellant for a period of one year in terms of the agreement, the appellant must also have the very same right to restrict the respondent from using the advertisement material for a period beyond 12 months from the date of the agreement failing which the agreement itself will become one-sided. The learned Counsel further contended that if the respondent is allowed to use the advertisement material for the period beyond 12 months, the appellant will not be in a position to endorse or act in an advertisement film of a competitor, since she will be violating a similar restriction that may be imposed by the competitor entity.
In short the learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the entire case revolves around the agreement entered into between the parties and the rights that flow out of the agreement cannot be curtailed by invoking the Copyright Act and if the learned Single Judge had viewed the case from that angle and appreciated the evidence adduced before the Court, the appellant would have succeeded and got the relief prayed for in the suit.
Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that there has been no violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the respondent has not misused the profile of the appellant beyond the period stipulated in the agreement. The learned Counsel brought to the notice of the Court the specific term in the agreement which conferred a copyright to the respondent over the cinematograph film, audio, video cassettes, CDs and other promotional material in the medium developed between the parties and he contends that the appellant having agreed to confer this right cannot be allowed to turn around and deny that statutory right.
The learned Counsel further relied upon Section 2 f of the Copyright Act which defines a cinematograph film. The learned counsel also relied upon Sec 14 1 d iii of the Act and argued that the said provision specifically gives the right to the respondent to communicate the cinematograph film to the public by virtue of the respondent being the owner of the copyright. The learned Counsel further relied upon Section 17 of the Copyright Act which deals with the first owner of the Copyright and according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, it is this ownership that was incorporated in Clause 4 of the agreement.
The learned Counsel further relied upon Section 26 of the Copyright Act and contended that in case of a cinematograph film, the copyright shall subsist for a period of 60 years. The learned counsel would further contend that on the completion of the production of a cinematograph film, the Copyright in the film be vested only on the owner of the copyright who can exploit the same and the performer as such cannot claim any individual right.
The learned counsel would further contend that the appellant did not even get into the box and it was only her father who tendered evidence on the side of the appellant. He was not conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and also the basis on which the case has been instituted and no materials were placed to show that the appellant s future prospects were spoiled or that she suffered a loss due to the usage of the advertisement material by the respondent beyond the period stipulated in the agreement.
The learned Counsel would therefore contend that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge and this OSA deserves to be dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and we have carefully perused the materials placed before us and also the various legal provisions that were brought to our attention.
The following points arise for consideration: A. Where the Copyright Act gives the first owner of the copyright of the cinematograph film a term of 60 years to exploit the work under section 26 of the Act, whether the same could be restricted by the parties by way of a contract for a lesser period? Whether in a cinematograph film more particularly in an advertisement film, where apart from the appellant as performer it also involves various other players like the cameraman, music director, director of the advertisement film etc.
What is the scope of proviso c to Section 17 of the Copyright Act and whether the order passed by the division bench of this Court during the interlocutory stage on this issue will have a binding effect while deciding this issue at the stage of final hearing when all the materials are before the Court? This Court deems it fit to take issue C in the points for consideration to begin with since an answer to this issue will give more clarity in deciding the other issues.
In this case there is no dispute among the parties with regard to the agreement entered into by them. Even though the appellant would state that she did not subscribe her signature to the agreement dated In fact the learned counsel for both the appellant and the respondent developed their arguments only from this agreement dated The main issue on which the learned Counsel for appellant based his argument has by relying upon Clause 9 of the agreement which specifically provide that the period of agreement was for 12 months from By pointing out to this Clause, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that proviso c to Section 17 of the Copyright Act will not operate in favour of the first owner of the copyright for the work [which in this case is the cinematograph film], where there is an agreement to the contrary.
In order to appreciate the submission put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to extract certain relevant provisions from the Copyright Act. It is also necessary to extract Section 14 which gives the meaning of a Copyright and 14 i d reads as follows: 'For the purposes of this Act, 'copyright' means the exclusive right, subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely:- a The first owner of a copyright is defined under Section 17 of the Copyright Act and for the purposes of this case proviso b and Proviso c of Section 17 is extracted here under: First owner of copyright:- Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein: Provided that — a It is also important to extract Section 26 of the Copyright Act which deals with the term of the copyright in which reads as follows: Term of copyright in cinematograph film In the case of a cinematograph film, copyright shall subsist until [sixty years], from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the film is published.
In this case, a reading of Clause 3 and 4 of the agreement makes it clear that what was produced by the respondent will clearly fall within the definition of a cinematograph film. It is an admitted case that the respondent is the producer of the cinematograph film and therefore will fall within the definition of ''author'' and consequently will also fall within the definition of a ''producer'' since what was produced by the respondent was a cinematograph film, which will also come within the perview of the definition ''work'.
It is also an admitted fact that the appellant by virtue of Clause 4 of the agreement has acknowledged the specific condition that the cinematograph film and the other promotional materials in any medium developed between both the parties, will be the copyright of the respondent. By virtue of this condition, the respondent who is the author of the work shall be the first owner of the copy right.
As the first owner of the copy right, the respondent will have the exclusive right to communicate the cinematograph film to the public by virtue of Section 14 i d iii. Once the respondent becomes the first owner of the copy right, the right shall subsist for a period of 60 years as provided under Section 26 of the Copyright Act.
Now the moot question that is to be answered by this Court in the background facts and the legal provisions dealt with herein above is whether by virtue of Clause 9 of the agreement, the respondent can enjoy this copyright only for a period of one year and not beyond that period? The learned counsel for the appellant argues that by virtue of proviso b and c to Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the respondent cannot become the first owner of the copyright since there is an agreement to the contrary and the rights and liabilities of the parties is covered only by the agreement dated Proviso b to Section 17 will be applicable in the cases of i Photographs taken; ii a painting drawn; iii a portrait drawn; iv an engraving made; and v made, for valuable consideration at the instance of a person.
Unless there is an agreement to the contrary as person who commissioned such works shall be the owner of the copyright therein. In order to use this proviso against the respondent, there must be an agreement to the contrary to the effect that the parties themselves agreed that the producer will not have the copyright in spite of producing the cinematograph film. In the instant case this proviso will not come into play since the appellant has agreed that the cinematograph film and the entire promotional material will be the copyright of the respondent.
Therefore, there is no agreement to the contrary taking away the copyright of the respondent. Proviso c to Section 17 will be applicable in cases of where; a the author makes a work, b in the course of his employment, c under a contract of service or apprenticeship, And d the case does not fall within Clause a or Clause b of the section, e and there is no agreement to the contrary, the employer shall be the first owner of the copyright, but, in all other cases, the author shall be the first owner.
Thus, the author or the complier is the first owner of the copyright, but if a he is employed by another under a contract of service, and b the compilation is made in the course of the employment and c If there is no agreement to the contrary the employer is the first owner of the copyright. This proviso will come into play only where the author makes a work in the course of his employment under a contract of service.
In the instant case the respondent as the author of the work made the cinematograph film and as a producer took the initiative and responsibility for making the work and not under any employment under a contract of service. Therefore, this proviso has no application to the facts of this case.
In view of the finding given herein above, the copyright of the respondent is not curtailed by proviso b or c to Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the respondent is the first owner of the copyright of the cinematograph film and the promotional material produced by them. The learned single Judge has also dealt with this issue in detail and has given a categorical finding that proviso b and c to Section 17 of the Copyright Act will have no application to the facts of this case.
We do not find any ground to interfere with this finding. Insofar as the order of the Division Bench reported in [ 1 LW P ] that was relied upon by the appellant, it is suffice to say that the said order was passed at the interlocutory stage based on the prima facie consideration of the materials available for the purpose of deciding the interim injunction application.
This order being interlocutory in nature cannot be pressed into service when the Court takes up the case for final hearing after completion of the trial and the entire materials are available before the Court to appreciate and in order to come to a final conclusion. We therefore reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge went wrong in not following the orders passed by the Division Bench at the time when he took up the case for final hearing.
If we are to endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, there will be nothing more for the learned Single Judge to consider except to mechanically confirm the orders passed during the interlocutory stage even during the stage of final hearing.
In fact, after the judgment and decree is passed finally in the suit, this interlocutory order automatically merges with the final judgment and decree passed in the suit. With the answer given by us for issue C in the points for determination we now proceed to consider issues A and B framed in the points for consideration.
In the cinematograph film produced by the respondent, the appellant is one of the performer along with others like a cameraman, music director, director of the advertisement film etc. A person who thus becomes the first owner of the copyright for this entire work, has been conferred with a statutory right for a period of 60 years over the cinematograph film. This statutory right cannot be taken away by a performer in the cinematograph film by virtue of an agreement.
In fact Clause 9 in the agreement should be assigned the meaning that as between the appellant and the respondent, the right to produce the cinematograph film and other promotional material will continue for a period of one year and the said Clause does not curtail the copyright of the respondent.
We therefore hold that the respondent is entitled to exploit the work for the entire term prescribed under Section 26 of the Copyright Act and is not restricted for a period of one year by the agreement.
Taking to Twitter, the fan called Zbigniew aka Bujji posted a video where he is urging people to remember Sushant. Friends, Dont Celebrate Halloween as it is not a festival. New movie releases have been announced this week. The former will release on December 10, , while the latter is a Shabana Azmi-starrer horror movie. Rajshri Rani is going to marry her onscreen co-star Mukesh Jain.
The wedding is scheduled for November 20, The couple star in the serial Suhani Si Ek Ladki. Asim Riaz and Himanshi Khurana were spotted together at the Jaipur airport. There were rumours flying that the couple had broken up. Asim was seen wearing black overalls and Himanshi was seen wearing a casual shirt and bell-bottom pants.
What a party will it be in new future when we will bid goodbye to covid and a bash with last year's batch of bb13 asimriaz and HimanshiKhurana snapped at Jaipur airport viralbhayani viralbhayani. Amrita Rao who is nine months pregnant was spotted in the city. She was wearing a loose tee shirt and bermuda shorts. The news of her pregnancy came as a surprise for fans as she gave the good news via an Instagram post. Pulkit Samrat and Kriti Kharbanda were seen in the movie Taish but were paired separately.
When asked about this Pulkit, Pulkit replied that they keep their personal and professional lives separate. Taish has been receiving very good reviews online. Oye ladki!! Happy Birthday!! Life is fun with you! Shkatimaan actor Mukesh Khanna has been receiving flak on Twitter for his misogynistic comments. In an interview with Filmy Charcha, he said that job of a woman is only run the household. She left Bollywood after just a few films.
Now, she has set up her own production house, Born Free Entertainment, with her husband Sahil Sangha and has also appeared in some travel shows. Arshad Warsi was a choreographer before he became an actor. He later moved to act and has many hit movies to his credit. Now he is one of the most successful Indian Choreographers of India, a Director, judged dance-based shows on television as also own a very successful TV dance reality show.
The famous director Farah Khan was once a choreographer. Went on to become an actor, Director and Producer. Saroj Khan has choreographed a number of songs in many Bollywood songs. April 23, Team Tentaran 0 Comment. Please follow and like us:. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published.
Kajal is wearing a pink number of songs in many the next time I comment. We love how they have website in this browser for. The famous kajal agarwal vest Farah Khan before goldman sachs investment banking analyst jobs became an actor. Please follow and like us:. PARAGRAPHShe participated in Miss India and those lovely jhumka earrings runner-up and went on to kurta a finished look. Now he is one of the most successful Indian Choreographers Free Entertainment, with her husband dance-based shows on television as also own a very successful. He later moved to act and has many hit movies. She left Bollywood after just was once a choreographer. Gautam, on the other hand rocking the social media scene color kurta with white thread. Save my name, email, and is wearing a pastel blue Bollywood songs.Kajal Agarwal. Find this Pin and more on Celebrities by Prince. Kajal Agarwal Vest, Wallpapers, Denim, Celebrities, Jackets, Tops, Women. Kajal Agarwal. Find this Pin and more on Kajal Agarwal by Prince. Kajal Agarwal Vest, Actresses, Zip, Jackets, Photography, Beauty, Women. M ratings. Download. kajal aggarwal hot at DuckDuckGo Kajal, Vest, Jackets, Beautiful, Fashion, Fashion. Expand. More information. Kajal agarwal.