BOMBAY HIGH COURT FINDS CBFC NOTICE ON SUB-TITLES UNSUSTAINABLE; ORDERS THAT SUBTITLES CAN BE ADDED IN THE FILM EVEN AFTER CERTIFICATION BY GETTING ENDORSEMENT FROM CBFC
In a petition filed by Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association (IMPAA) challenging a notice issued by CBFC dated April 27, 2018 which required that applicants must submit an undertaking along with their application clearly stating that (a) subtitles are included or (b) no subtitles will be added once a film is certified, the Bombay High Court has vide its order dated September 25, 2019 ruled that any addition of subtitles after certification of the film is required to be reported to the Board in Form III in the Second Schedule of the Cinematograph Rules and the Board has to endorse the particulars of the alteration on the certificate, as mandated under Rule 33 of the said Rules.
The Court further ruled that the direction given in the CBFC notice is unsustainable for two reason: Firstly, it mandates that the film maker must submit with the film subtitles if he desires that the film should carry sub-titles. Once the film is certified, no sub-titles would be permitted to be added. The Court held that the CBFC does not have power under the Act or the Rules to give such a mandate. In a given case, a film maker may decide to add sub-titles after a period of time when he wishes to exhibit the film in a region where the language is different from one used in the film. At that point of time, necessity of adding sub-titles may arise. There is no reason that this should be prevented. Secondly, the court found the direction to run contrary to the stand of the CBFC itself explained in the affidavit in reply i.e. sub-titles could be added in a film which is already certified as per the procedure by reporting the same to CBFC in prescribed format and getting endorsement of the CBFC on the certificate.
Read order: here
PIL FILED BEFORE INDORE BENCH OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT FOR REGULATION OF CONTENT ON OTT PLATFORMS
A PIL has been filed by Maatr Foundation in the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking regulation of content on OTT Platforms. The division bench of Justice S. C. Sharma and Justice Shailendra Shukla have issued notice in the plea and directed the respondents to file their reply within six weeks. The matter is next listed on December 10, 2019.
PIL FILED BY KIN OF NARASIMHA REDDY TO STAY THE RELEASE OF THE BIOPIC MOVIE ‘SYE RAA’
Doravari Dastagiri Reddy and others who claim to be the legal fourth-generation heirs of the freedom fighter Narasimha Reddy, have filed a PIL seeking a direction against the filmmakers of the biopic titled ‘Sye Raa’ based on Narasimha Reddy and a direction for CBFC to not grant a certificate to the said movie. The kin have demanded to watch a preview of the film before its release and the royalty due shall also be paid before the release of the movie.
The filmmakers had met the kin and agreed to pay 10% remuneration for the kin of the total cost of making the movie as royalty, for using their family history, house and other articles in the film. The amount was promised to be paid before the release of Sye Raa’s trailer.
The petitioners allege that Rs 25,000/- was initially paid towards their travel expenses after which the producer and others from the film unit stopped attending their calls. They claimed a royalty of Rs.20,00,00,000/- from the filmmakers.
The matter was heard by Justice Abhinand Kumar wherein it was pointed that if the parties had an agreement to the effect of paying 10% of the cost of movie as royalty, the same had to be enforced in a civil court.
The filmmakers had already obtained an injunction against the Petitioners herein restraining them from interfering in release of the movie. They are also issuing a disclaimer that the film resembles none and that it is not a biopic.
The movie is scheduled to be released on 2nd October, 2019.
ONLINE SITES WILL SOON BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN CERTIFICATION FOR STREAMING.
As per reports, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting will soon finalize the model for certification of online video streaming content after Diwali. Nine online video streaming platforms, earlier, had decided to adopt self-regulation Code of Best Practices under the support of Internet and Mobile Association of India. However, few new shows on some platforms have raised concerns in the government and thus they are working out on a model of Certification for such online content. The model proposed and to be finalized would only apply to Indian content and not to the international content. Few other highlights of the Code so proposed were that they classified content in distinct categories which were meant for general or universal viewing, content requiring parental supervision and content meant for age appropriate audiences. They also prohibited any content which is anyway prohibited including child pornography, outraging religious sentiments, content encouraging terrorism among others. The Platforms were also required to display a content descriptor which informed the nature of the content to the viewer.
SUPREME COURT DIRECTS MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (MEITY) TO FINALISE INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES.
In the Facebook transfer case which is based on linking of AADHAR card with social media accounts and sharing of such information by the intermediaries with the law enforcing agency as and when the need for any such information required in investigation and detection of cyber-crime. The Supreme Court stated that it is for the Government and not the Judiciary to draft such Intermediary guidelines which address the issues raised in the petition.
Facebook filed a transfer petition as different petitions containing similar prayers and based on similar issues had been filed in Bombay, Madras and Madhya Pradesh High Courts. Further it was contended that a case, the outcome of which is going to affect majority of the population should be heard by the Apex Court and hence they filed the transfer petition.
The main issue arising in these petitions is how and in what manner the intermediaries should provide information including the names of the originators of any message/content/information shared on the platforms run by these intermediaries.
The intermediaries contended that sharing of information with a third agency would amount to breach of privacy of a person. Further, sometimes the originator of the message cannot be traced by the Intermediaries as it is secured with end to end encryption. An affidavit by an IIT professor was filed which claimed that he can trace the originator of a message.
The Court directed the Secretary of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to file an affidavit within three weeks regarding the progress of framing/ notifying of the Intermediary Guidelines.
The matter will next be heard on 22.10.2019.
GARBA SINGER KINJAL DAVE RECEIVES NOTICE TO APPEAR IN COURT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CHARGES
Kinjal Dave has been asked to appear before the city civil court on October 10,2019, in relation to copyright infringement charges for her popular garba song, “Char char bangdi vadi gadi”.
According to reports, Australia-based Gujarati singer Kartik Patel had filed the civil suit against singer Kinjal Dave through Red Ribbon Entertainment Pvt Ltd alleging copyright infringement and seeking an injunction against her performing or playing the song under provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
MADRAS HIGH COURT GRANTS A JOHN DOE ORDER TO CURB PIRACY OF THE TAMIL FILM ‘NAMMA VEETTU PILLAI’
The Madras high court restrained 43 internet service providers (ISPs) across the country and 6,455 websites from uploading or streaming pirated versions of the Tamil film ‘Namma Veettu Pillai’. Justice N Sathish Kumar passed the order while allowing a plea moved by the film’s producer Sun TV Network. The producer claimed the company had invested substantial money in the making of the film which is set to be released across the world, including screens in Chennai, on September 27. As per Copyright Act, Sun TV Network is the absolute copyright holder of the cinematographic film with all exploitation and distribution rights, the firm said. Therefore, apprehending that pirated versions of the film might get released in the 6,455 websites operated from various countries, the producer sought to protect the rights conferred under the Copyright Act and moved the present plea. Allowing the plea, the court restrained the ISPs and the websites from releasing pirated versions of the film.
