IPRMENTLAW WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS ( 23rd to 31st Oct’ 20)

0
505

AKSHAY KUMAR-STARRER LAXMMI BOMB NOW TITLED ‘LAXMII’ FOLLOWING PROTESTS FROM HINDU OUTFITS

The title of Akshay Kumar’s upcoming film Laxmmi Bomb has now been changed to Laxmii. As per reports, the producers changed the name of the film after several Hindu outfits protested against the title Laxmmi Bomb, alleging that it hurt religious sentiments and was an insult to Goddess Laxmi. Karni Sena had reportedly sent a legal notice to the makers of the film demanding a change in the title.

TANISHQ AD: PLEA FILED IN HIGH COURT TO REGULATE NEWS CHANNELS FROM BROADCASTING CONTENT ON COMMUNAL DISHARMONY

Amid the recent Tanishq advertisement showing inter-faith couple, a plea has been moved in the Delhi High Court seeking to regulate news channels over broadcast and publishing of content based on communal disharmony and hate speech. The plea sought direction to the authorities to form guidelines to include restrictions as envisaged under Article 19 of the Constitution and orders of the Supreme Court to ensure that media does not abuse the freedom of speech and expression.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT ORDERS REINSTATEMENT OF YOUTUBE LINKS OF NH STUDIOZ

NH Studios had filed a suit filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court against Satish Tandon Productions (STP) & Ors for reinstatement of NH Studioz YouTube links of the films “Ustadon Ke Ustad”, “Soutela”, “Namak”, “Khopdi” and “Bijli”. STP was issuing strikes on the YouTube channel of NH Studioz and due to the strikes, YouTube had stopped the ‘upload’ feature of the NH Studioz YouTube channel thereby causing it losses. Taking note, inter alia, of the fact that STP had not moved the Court for any ad interim relief against NH Studioz, the Hon’ble Bombay Court, by way of interim relief, directed YouTube to reinstate the said links of NH Studioz and not disable the NH Studioz YouTube Channel. The Court further directed YouTube to share the account statement of the NH Studioz YouTube channel with respect to the said Films and deposit the amounts with the High Court. The said strikes issued by STP were directed to be treated withdrawn and STP has been further restrained from issuing any further strikes on YouTube against the NH Studioz in relation to the said films.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT DIRECTS TV TODAY NETWORK IN PLEA AGAINST BARC ORDER : PAY 5 LAKH FINE IF YOU WANT INTERIM PROTECTION

The Bombay High Court directed TV Today Network Ltd to deposit fine imposed on it by Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC); if it wanted protection from possible coercive action. The matter is further scheduled for hearing on 5th Nov 2020.

GOVERNMENT IS NOW BUILDING A CENTRAL CLOUD-BASED TOOL TO MONITOR TV CONTENT

The government now wants to build a central cloud-based tool to monitor TV channels and other exclusive services offered by cable TV providers. The surveillance tool should be able to identify the broadcasting of “unauthorised” content on TV channels using artificial intelligence, and flag them for recording which can later be used as legal evidence. The government’s argument is that currently, there is no system in place to “regularly monitor” whether TV operators adhere to rules for the operation of cable television network laid down in the Cable TV Network Act. The Act, among other things, prohibits TV broadcasters from showcasing content or advertisements that could create disharmony between communities on the basis of religion, race, language, cast, or other grounds. It is possible that government aims to keep an eye on any such content being aired on TV using the proposed online monitoring tool, as its primary mandate is to flag “unauthorised” content.

PVR WINS ENTERTAINMENT TAX CASE IN MADRAS HIGH COURT

The Madras High Court stated the online booking charge of ₹30, collected by theatres over and above the cost of each ticket, cannot be subjected to entertainment tax by the Commercial Taxes Department, under the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act of 1939. Justice Vineet Kothari and M.S. Ramesh held that online booking charges, collected by cinema halls, were for the additional service provided to customers, and they were not mandatory for gaining entry into theatres. Therefore, such a charge could not be subjected to entertainment tax.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here