COPYRIGHT; all the fics that I write are copyrighted
All my content is a work of fanfiction using characters / personas from Free!, Hunter x Hunter, Tokyo Revengers, Jujutsu Kaisen, Obey Me, Akudama Drive, Boku no Hero Academia, Chainsaw Man, Ikemen Games, Bungo Stray Dogs, Diamond no ace and Haikyuu which belong to their respective writers. I do not claim ownership of these characters, only of the original characters I make up. This is clearly a work of fiction, any relation to real life scenarios is a mere coincidence.
You are NOT allowed to repost my work on any other site without my permission e.g YouTube, Wattpad, Tiktok, Twitter etc.
AGE; all the characters I write for will be aged up.
For BNHA, they will be pro heroes. For Haikyuu I would use the time skipped versions. For obey me! The writers specifically stated that the ages are up to us to determine in a Instagram post. So ofc, they will be set in their 20s -30s human age. For Diamond no ace and Free! they will be in university or in a pro league! And this goes for the rest of anime/games i write for.
CONTENT; the fics I write show dark themes and issues such as yandere relationships and dubcon.
I write dark themes so the readers can be aware of examples of bad relationships. I ensure that each fic, blurb or piece has a disclaimer(eg. This is not love). Thesw are obviously examples of bad relationships, in an attempt to cope with my past trauma. If you find yourself in one similar to the scenarios I write please tell someone.
《 if you can't distinguish fiction in media from reality then you should not be on my blog》
European Union lawmakers on Thursday voted against a series of controversial copyright rules known as the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. (...) The directive will now go back to the drawing board and be debated again in September.
hades~~this isn't a thirst or anything but i was wondering how do i copyright my fics? i recently have been plagiarised and tbh it pissed me off so much and i felt so worn down for the past few days.):
hi sweetpea, thank you for coming to me with this topic. i hate plagiarism so much- and it does piss me off too dw. okay so let me tell you something straight out...
all work that you write, whether you publish it or not - is legally yours and copyrighted. you have the rights to your work because its yours and you did it yourself (my mother worked at a copyright government place for years - she told me this and i got copyright books with it too. but if you need more references here are some links
basically, once you write it - its your work, fanfics are a little different tho so you have to put your disclaimer saying that you do not own the characters use, since they were created by the writer of the manga.. but you own the plot of your fics and the creative ideas of the fic. because if you don’t state these things - chances are the real writers can sue you for profiting off their characters and work - but that’s a whole other issue. hahah dw about that.
in summary, once you write your work and publish it is already copyrighted. to discourage people from reposting it and claiming it as yours, ensure that you have a disclaimer (like my pinned post) and so on. but also protect yourself by saying that these characters are from someone else and you don’t claim to own them... i hope this was easier to understand.
you are free to use my pinned post as inspo for your copyright stuff.. hope you have a lovely day!
Here you will learn some of the most important regulations that you should be aware of and follow before creating your next digital marketin
When searching for digital marketing strategies, you need to be careful of the strict legalities associated with advertising. Overlooking these legalities can result in the flag or ad takedown and eventually result in thousands of penalties. You can even lose your professional licenses for violations.
So, to avoid breaking the advertising and marketing laws, you can learn about some of the important ones that apply to your business. This will help you create a digital marketing campaign that runs without interruption and sees the new horizons of success.
Internet streaming in India contributes to the majority of revenues of the recorded music industry.
Internet streaming in India contributes to the majority of revenues of the recorded music industry. With the onset of the trend wherein users are gradually switching to online streaming to meet their music needs and discarding traditional methods such as radio, television, and music CDs, compulsory licensing for the internet was recognized as a key policy issue by the music industry last year. Licensing is imperative for the product because it is known that music rights holders have worked hard. Although customers may have easy and legal access to music than before, how true is it in India? If the music that is streamed is not licensed out, then does it amount to Copyright Infringement?
Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957, which was introduced in 2012, allows any broadcasting organization to stream to its users any music or sound work that is previously published by invoking a compulsory license by way of unilateral notice and paying the royalty that is determined by Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) by way of Copyright Rules. Due to the widespread growth of the internet all over the globe, ‘communication to the public’ via the internet is much more prevalent, and thus, on 5th September 2016, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) issued an Office Memorandum clarifying the scope of Section 31D of Copyright Act, 1957 by construing that “Any broadcasting organization desirous of communicating to the public” may not be restrictively interpreted to be covering only radio and television broadcasting, as the definition of ‘broadcast’ read with “communication to the public” appears to include all kinds of broadcasts, including internet broadcasting; thereby, bringing ‘online broadcasting’ under the ambit of section 31D of Copyright Act, 1957.
The Bombay High Court, in a decision not very long ago, held that the existing provisions on statutory licensing under the Copyright Act and Copyright Rules did not include internet broadcasting by means of internet streaming and/or downloading.
Background
The Plaintiff, Tips Industries Ltd., had claimed to be the owner of the copyright in over 25,000 sound recordings. The Defendants own and operate Wynk, an Over-the-Top Service available on the internet, smartphones, and smart media. Via this service, upon payment of a subscription fee, the Defendants’ subscribers could access numerous sound recordings and audio-visual recordings, including, among other things, the Plaintiff’s Repertoire. Tips’ Repertoire was earlier licensed to the Defendants by the copyright society – Phonographic Performance Limited. After the end of the license term mentioned above, negotiations arose between Tips and Wynk to arrive at terms for a renewed license; however, there was a failure to do so. Wynk then invoked Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957, by claiming itself to be a broadcasting organization. In brief, Wynk claimed that it was a ‘broadcasting organization’ and that it was permitted to get a statutory license under Section 31D of the Copyright Act to communicate the work to the public by way of the broadcast of Tips’ musical work and sound recordings. The same was the focal point of contention between both parties during the succeeding hearings.
Tips filed two suits against Wynk for copyright infringement – disputing Wynk’s right to avail statutory license provided for by Section 31D and claiming permanent injunction, restraining them from:
Communicating with the public Tips’ Repertoire; and
Giving on commercial rental/sale Tips’ Repertoire of songs by way of providing download services/features.
Arguments
The learned Senior Advocate for Tips Industries submitted that Section 31D of the Act does not anticipate a right or entitlement to rent out or sell copyrighted works commercially (which, allegedly Wynk was doing by providing users an option to download the music). The said section only anticipates a statutory license for ‘broadcasting.’ Furthermore, he submitted that even otherwise, a broadcast is a kind of activity that falls within the scope of ‘communication to the public.’ The learned Advocate for Tips submitted that the right to rent/sell sound recordings commercially is a separate right carved out under Section 14(1)(e)(ii) of the Act and is independent of the right to communicate to the public as provided in Section 14(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. It was also argued that if there is a combined reading of Sections 2(dd), 2(f), and 31D of the Act along with Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, it can be clearly understood that the legislature intended to exclude the right to rent out/sell sound recordings commercially from Section 31D and what is included is only the communication of sound recording to the public. In the meantime, seeking to claim the benefit of Section 31D, Wynk’s counsels had contended that it was a broadcasting organization and that it was ‘communicating to the public’ by way of the broadcast of the Tips’ Repertoire over the Internet.
Court’s Decision
The court held that Wynk could not invoke the provisions on statutory licensing under the Copyright Act in respect of its download/purchase business. The reasoning of the court can be summarized as follows:
Download and purchase features amounted to sale, and commercial rental, respectively: The court held that the provisions of the Copyright Act treated the acts of (1) commercial rental/sale and (2) communication of sound recordings independently.
Broadcast is a species of communicating a sound recording to the public: The court counted upon the definition of ‘broadcast’ under the Copyright Act, which indicated that this activity was a species of communication to the public.
Provisions on statutory licensing under the Copyright Act only applied to communication to the public by way of broadcast: The legislature had consciously excluded sale/commercial rental from the domain of the provisions on copyright licensing, following that the download and purchase of the business of Wynk was not covered within the ambit of the statutory licensing provisions.
The court held that the provisions on statutory licensing were limited to only television and radio broadcasting and did not include streaming services: Internet broadcasting cannot be construed to be a type of radio broadcasting.
Language of Copyright Rules: The court held that the language of Copyright Rules for giving notice to copyright owners, etc., also maintained the view that the current regime was only meant for radio and television broadcasting, not internet broadcasting.
Appellate Board has no power to fix Royalties for the broadcast of internet content under Section 31D: The court’s conclusions were further reinforced by the absence of any prescribed royalty rates when it came to the grant of statutory broadcasting licenses for internet content.
Fair use and transient storage: Wynk argued that permitting the user to listen to the music on the app for personal use constitutes ‘fair dealing,’ and is not copyright infringement, and is parallel to a member of the public making a copy of the song for personal use; that the storage is protected as being transient and incidental storage, and does not amount to copyright infringement. The court agreed that the defense of fair use might be available in a given case to an individual user; however, the “activities of Wynk can never be termed as ‘private’ or ‘personal use’ or research,” and that it is selling/commercially renting the sound recordings. The services are advertised on the idea that customers can store the files for offline usage, and that is a unique selling point of the service, and it thus is not incidental.
The Bombay High Court came to a prima facie conclusion that Wynk’s dependence on section 31D was void both on substantive as well as procedural counts and that its services amounted to an infringement of Tips’ copyright. The court also determined that since the whole of the Plaintiff’s repertoire was being infringed, the balance of convenience was in Tips’ favor, and the absence of an injunction would cause irreparable injury.
The Draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019
Under the Draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules 2019, all methods of broadcasting are intended to be covered under the garb of statutory licenses, including internet and Over-the-Top (OTT) media services such as Netflix, Hotstar, Amazon Prime, Gaana, Saavn, and the newest entrant in the Indian market, Spotify. It is an attempt to extend the statutory licensing to ‘internet broadcasters.’ The proposed rules, if passed, are expected to affect online streaming content services that may get better access to the content at improved terms and conditions. It is also imperative to note that the draft rules only lay down the procedure to implement the license under Rule 31D. The uncertainty about the substantive provision remains.
Conclusion
The introduction of Section 31D in 2012, by which time internet access to music was absolutely in existence, is evidence of the legislature’s intent to exclude internet broadcasting from the ambit of statutory licensing and confine the provision only to radio and television broadcasting. With the distinct shift of users from radio and television broadcasting to online streaming for listening to music, the legislature will also have to look into framing laws more precisely and appropriately for internet broadcasting and the rights and restrictions that go with it.
Despite being well-reasoned, the Bombay High Court’s judgment sits awkwardly with the Government of India’s policy on the issue of providing access to musical works to the public through the statutory licensing scheme, which is specified in the DIPP’s office memorandum. Practically executing this policy position would require legislative intervention through substantive amendments to Section 31 D of the Copyright Act to specifically comprise internet broadcasting services. The legislature would also have to resolve crucial conceptual problems concerning the applicability of current copyright in online digital transmissions – for instance, whether caching services qualify as a ‘sale’ or ‘rental.’ In doing so, India can follow jurisdictions like the United States, which allow for the statutory licensing of sound recordings for ‘non-interactive’ services, like online radio (17 USC Sections 112 and 114), and which recently came up with the Musical Works Modernization Act to streamline the licensing process for online music streaming. ✅ For more visit: https://www.kashishipr.com/
BRUSSELS | EU lawmakers vote for new online copyright rules
New Post has been published on https://www.stl.news/brussels-eu-lawmakers-vote-for-new-online-copyright-rules/169340/
BRUSSELS | EU lawmakers vote for new online copyright rules
BRUSSELS — European Union lawmakers on Wednesday voted in favor of new copyright rules that could shake up the way internet companies use media, books, music and other content posted online.
The lawmakers in Strasbourg, France, voted by 438 to 226 to back a report aimed at shielding the rights of the authors or creators of works like books, films or computer software.
German lawmaker Axel Voss, who chaperoned the report through the assembly, said the vote “is a good sign for the creative industries in Europe.”
Media and publishers say the changes would help them get paid for their work. Opponents say they are too hard to put into effect, and might lead to filtering or even greater control over the internet.
If the assembly has its way — the changes must still be endorsed by EU member states— online platforms would be liable for copyright infringements. That would include “snippets” where only a small part of a news publisher’s text is displayed.
Lawmakers believe the text contains provisions to ensure that copyright law can be respected without limiting freedom of expression. Wikipedia and open source software platforms would not be affected.
“We have addressed concerns raised about innovation by excluding small and micro platforms or aggregators from the scope,” Voss said.
“I am convinced that once the dust has settled, the internet will be as free as it is today, creators and journalists will be earning a fairer share of the revenues generated by their works, and we will be wondering what all the fuss was about.”
The European Magazine Media Association praised the move as “a great day for the independent press and for democracy,” saying it would modernize the rules without stifling online competition.
But the Computer and Communications Industry Association said it would “undermine free expression online and access to information.”
