• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

GUJARAT LAW SOCIETY Date of publication : 7th of every month. News for GLS students, staff, alumni and friends Gujarat Law Society, Opp Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad 380006 ■ Ph 079 26440532, 079 26468513 ■ email: [email protected] ■ Price Rs.2/- INSIDE Volume 8 Issue 11 Editor: Dr. Bhalchandra H Joshi NOVEMBER 2016 END OF THE ROAD CONVOCATION CEREMONY OF GUJARAT LAW SOCIETy’S PGDBM PROGRAMME Pg : 2 A MAJOR VICTORY TO ACCESS TO EDUCATION DR. B H JOSHI, REGISTRAR, GLS, DR. HITESH RUPAREL, DIRECTOR, N R SHRI SUNIL PAREKH ADDRESSING THE GATHERING INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, SHRI SUNIL PAREKH, DR. RAJESH Pg : 4 ASRANI AND DR.DHARMESH SHAH LIGHTING THE LAMP. LITTLE ACTIVE CREATORS AS JOURNALISt’S Pg : 6-7 FIRE AND LIGHT PROUD GRADUATES! H.A COLLEGE OF COMMERCE WINS India’S MOST TRUSTED BRAND AWARD n a national survey held by Pg : 8 IBC infomedia, India, H.A þeík¤íkk ICollege of Commerce was adjudged the Most Trusted ykÃkLkkhku yÂøLk Brand. The award was conferred at the Leela Hotel in Mumbai. Prin Dr. Sanjay Vakil accepted this award on behalf of the college. This survey was held on parameters like college results, cultural activities, placements, social activities, sports, participation of students etc. Dr. Sanjay Vakil gave the Pg : 11 credit of this award to the G.L.S management, the faculties and “KHUSBOO GUJARAT Ni” the students. – A FOLK DANCE NOVENBER 2016 2 STUDENT OF GLS LAW COLLEGE FINDS AMBIGUITIES IN SPECIAL COURTS OF POCSO By Rishi Bhandari internship, Vacha attended correctional measures. interviewed victims and he end goal of every proceedings at different courts; During her course of study enquired about their educational institution is however, the Special Court of at GLS Law College, Vacha had proceedings. The guidelines Tto see the theoretical POCSO, (The Protection of gained an in-depth which were not followed are: knowledge getting converted Children from Sexual Offences understanding of the guidelines • According to POCSO Act into practical application and Act, 2012) attracted her of National Human Rights 2012, the case must be used for the betterment of attention and she was able to Commission on POCSO Act, decided within 1 year. But society at large. This has been point out discrepancies in the 2012. Observing the in the Special Courts of efficiently proved true by a court proceedings after careful proceedings in Special Courts POCSO at Ahmedabad, the student, Ms. Vacha Shah, observation and investigative of POCSO, she understood that judgments of most of the currently pursuing semester – research. The matter was these guidelines were not cases have not been decided III of B.A.LL.B at GLS Law brought to the notice of National adhered to. To confirm her within the prescribed time College, Ahmedabad. Human Rights Commission, accepted this complaint but also findings as observed in the limit in the Act. During her summer and the commission not only directed the authorities for court, she personally CONTINUED ON PAGE-3 A MAJOR VICTORY TO ACCESS TO EDUCATION By Dr Mayuri H. Pandya authors and inventors in order copyright. The Court accepted student issuing a book from the opyright, specially to benefit the public.” – the contention of DU that the DU library and copying the in literary works, is acts under Section 52 are not to same, whether by hand or by “C not an inevitable, Delhi University Photocopying viewed as a proviso or exception photocopying for her private or divine, or natural right that case to Section 51. Section 52(1)(i) personal use would be protected confers on authors the absolute The latest judgement of the states that the reproduction of a under fair dealing. Therefore, it ownership of their creations. It Delhi High Court of spetember work by a “teacher/ pupil in the was absurd to state that if the is designed rather to stimulate 2016 is a major victory to course of instruction” would Delhi University did the exact activity and progress in the arts access to education in our Court clearly stated that it not constitute infringement. The same act as a direct result of its for the intellectual enrichment country at large. The case filed agreed with the submission of question before the court was resource constraints, then the of the public. Copyright is in 2012 by various publishers the defendants that the question whether the interpretation of action of DU would constitute intended to increase and not to (OUP, CUP etc) against of taking such a license only this section was restricted to an infringement and not be impede the harvest of Rameshwari Photocopy arises if the Court comes to the individual teacher and an protected under fair dealing. knowledge. It is intended to Services, a small photocopy conclusion that the making of individual pupil or whether it Hence, the Court stated, “When motivate the creative activity of shop which had a license from course packs is not covered would extend to an institution the effect of the action is the Delhi University to make under Section 52 of the and its students. The Court same, the difference in the coursepacks for the students of Copyright Act and therefore, unequivocally held that it mode of action cannot make a the university. The suit filed by constitutes infringement. cannot be so restricted difference so as to make one an the publishers rightly caught the Therefore, the Court rightly especially when considering the offence.” Similarly, the Court attention of authors, lawyers, recognized that it was societal realities. Education in also noted that if a student took academics and the public alike- absolutely unnecessary for the India has for long been photographs of pages of a the decision in the matter would defendants to negotiate any institutionalized and therefore, textbook from the DU library Volume: 8, Issue: XI have great ramification on the license from copyright the law cannot and should not on his cellphone and then © 2009 All rights reserved. cost of and consequently, access societies for making course be interpreted in such a fashion proceeded to print the same, President, GLS to education in this country, like packs if the law provides the that it does not reflect the that would be protected under Deepak Navnitlal Parikh no other. defendants with the right to do realities of our education fair dealing as it is merely an Honorary Secretary, GLS The suit was filed before so. The Court recognized that system. The second main advancement in technology of Devang Nanavati Publisher & Editor-in-chief the Delhi High Court in 2012. copyright is a statutory right contention was with respect to copying by hand or Dr Bhalchandra Joshi In September 2012, an order and according to the provisions the interpretation of the term photocopying. (Registrar, GLS) directing DU to examine the of the copyright act, “course of instruction”. The The Court held that it was Managing Editor proposal of the plaintiffs that photocopying original literary plaintiffs contented that this irrelevant whether DU was Dr. Avani Desai Editorial Board they obtain a license from work is an exclusive right of term must be limited to lectures making the course packs by Aashal Bhatt Reprographic Rights the owner of the copyright and and tutorials, where the teacher itself or had licensed it to a Dharini Patel Organisation such as IRRO for that the making of photocopies is directly interacting with the contractor. As long as the Dipalee Atre preparing course packs was by DU would constitute pupils and in doing so, is using impugned act was protected Dr. Jean Dsouza passed. In October 2012, infringement under Section 51 the copyrighted work. The under Section 52, it was Kalpesh Jani Rameshwari was restrained by unless such act is listed under Court did not accept this irrelevant whose hands did the Dr. Kavita Patel Kruti Paritosh the order of the Court from Section 52 of the Copyright contention and held that the photocopying and the making Marzun Jokhi making or selling course packs Act. The Court also noted the legislature specifically chose to of the coursepacks, whether it is Nirja Vasavada until final disposal of the differences between the DU use the word instruction rather individual students, the Dr. Jayesh Mandanka application for interim relief. library issuing copies of the than lecture, and therefore, the educational institutions or a GLS Voice is published monthly by Gujarat The subject matter of the book to the public and DU interpretation of the term licensee such as Rameshwari. Law Society, Law Garden, Ellisbridge, September 2012 order was one making photocopies of the “instruction” cannot be limited A classic example of Ahmedabad. The opinions expressed by others in GLS of the first issues considered work. to that of lecture. The Court application of Doctrine of Fair Voice do not necessarily reflect those of by the Court when it had The Court then moved on to then attempted to determine dealing under the Copyright Gujarat Law Society or its members. Letters determined the relevant the interpretation of Section 52 when the imparting of law of India.This is truely a to the Editorial Board and other correspond- question, ie, whether the of the Copyright Act, which instruction begins and ends in a victory with the lens of access ence should be sent to The Editorial Board, making of course packs by the forms the pivotal part of the university. to education. GLS Voice, Gujarat Law Society, Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad or e-mailed to first and second defendants decision. Section 52 lists out The Court approached this [email protected] amounted to infringement of certain acts that are not to be issue from a different angle as (The writer is Co-ordinator, copyright of the plaintiffs.

Load more

  11

Copy Link