为什么是 50:印度版权与设计界面中的 "工业应用 "限制

Ambika Aggarwal, Anindya Sircar
{"title":"为什么是 50:印度版权与设计界面中的 \"工业应用 \"限制","authors":"Ambika Aggarwal, Anindya Sircar","doi":"10.1093/jiplp/jpae033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The current IP overlap in Indian copyright and design laws maintains that fine art aesthetics remain a province of copyright law and are strictly disjointed from protection afforded to utilitarian objects under design law. In practical application, however, Section 15 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 serves as a point of partial cumulation. Section 15(2) creates a curious situation where the nature of the work could be determined not by its substantive subject-matter requirement but rather an arbitrary rule of more-than-50 articles of production. Section 15 remains an unrefined relic of the Imperial Copyright Act of 1914. The strong reactions against the repeal of Section 52 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 along with varied applications of the 50-article rule in other common law jurisdictions can be useful for the Delhi High Court in considering the ongoing constitutional challenge against Section 15(2). Differences in judicial opinions in a rather small pool of precedents have created significant scepticism in interpreting the precise scope of this ‘industrial application’ limitation. Repealing Section 15(2), despite its controversial status, would move the Indian copyright-design interface from partial to full cumulation—a result that does not sit well with the present legislative structure. Resolution of the issue requires the court to display sound conceptual deftness.","PeriodicalId":315837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice","volume":"66 16","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why 50?: ‘industrial application’ limitation in the Indian copyright-design interface\",\"authors\":\"Ambika Aggarwal, Anindya Sircar\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jiplp/jpae033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The current IP overlap in Indian copyright and design laws maintains that fine art aesthetics remain a province of copyright law and are strictly disjointed from protection afforded to utilitarian objects under design law. In practical application, however, Section 15 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 serves as a point of partial cumulation. Section 15(2) creates a curious situation where the nature of the work could be determined not by its substantive subject-matter requirement but rather an arbitrary rule of more-than-50 articles of production. Section 15 remains an unrefined relic of the Imperial Copyright Act of 1914. The strong reactions against the repeal of Section 52 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 along with varied applications of the 50-article rule in other common law jurisdictions can be useful for the Delhi High Court in considering the ongoing constitutional challenge against Section 15(2). Differences in judicial opinions in a rather small pool of precedents have created significant scepticism in interpreting the precise scope of this ‘industrial application’ limitation. Repealing Section 15(2), despite its controversial status, would move the Indian copyright-design interface from partial to full cumulation—a result that does not sit well with the present legislative structure. Resolution of the issue requires the court to display sound conceptual deftness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":315837,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice\",\"volume\":\"66 16\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae033\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前,印度版权法和外观设计法中的知识产权重叠现象认为,美术美学仍属于版权法的范畴,与外观设计法对实用物品的保护严格分离。但在实际应用中,1957 年《印度版权法》第 15 条却起到了部分累加的作用。第 15 条第(2)款造成了一种奇怪的情况,即作品的性质不是由其实质性的主题要求来决定,而是由超过 50 件产品的任意规则来决定。第 15 条仍然是 1914 年《帝国版权法》的遗留物。反对废除 1988 年英国《版权、工业品外观设计和专利法》第 52 条的强烈反应,以及其他普通法司法管辖区对 50 条规则的不同应用,都有助于德里高等法院考虑目前对第 15(2)条提出的宪法挑战。在为数不多的判例中,司法意见的分歧使人们对 "工业应用 "限制的确切范围产生了极大的怀疑。尽管第 15(2)条存在争议,但废除该条款将使印度版权与设计的关系从部分累积变为完全累积--这与目前的立法结构并不相符。要解决这一问题,法院必须在概念上表现出良好的灵活性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why 50?: ‘industrial application’ limitation in the Indian copyright-design interface
The current IP overlap in Indian copyright and design laws maintains that fine art aesthetics remain a province of copyright law and are strictly disjointed from protection afforded to utilitarian objects under design law. In practical application, however, Section 15 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 serves as a point of partial cumulation. Section 15(2) creates a curious situation where the nature of the work could be determined not by its substantive subject-matter requirement but rather an arbitrary rule of more-than-50 articles of production. Section 15 remains an unrefined relic of the Imperial Copyright Act of 1914. The strong reactions against the repeal of Section 52 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 along with varied applications of the 50-article rule in other common law jurisdictions can be useful for the Delhi High Court in considering the ongoing constitutional challenge against Section 15(2). Differences in judicial opinions in a rather small pool of precedents have created significant scepticism in interpreting the precise scope of this ‘industrial application’ limitation. Repealing Section 15(2), despite its controversial status, would move the Indian copyright-design interface from partial to full cumulation—a result that does not sit well with the present legislative structure. Resolution of the issue requires the court to display sound conceptual deftness.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信