Discuss the evolution and growth of copyright and neighbouring rights at the international level. Identify the reasons which developed the need of international legal framework for protection of neighbouring rights.”

---

QUESTION 1

“Discuss the evolution and growth of copyright and neighbouring rights at the international level. Identify the reasons which developed the need of international legal framework for protection of neighbouring rights.”

---

⟡ INTRODUCTION

Copyright and neighbouring rights are parts of intellectual property rights (IPRs) which protect creative works and performances.
While copyright protects authors of original works (books, films, music, computer programs), neighbouring rights protect those who contribute to presenting these works to the public (performers, producers, broadcasters).

At the international level, the development of these rights took place slowly through various conventions and treaties, especially because technology created new risks of misuse across borders.

---

⟡ EVOLUTION OF COPYRIGHT AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL

1. Pre-Convention Era (before 1886)

• Each country protected copyright under its own domestic laws.
• No country was bound to give protection to foreign authors.
• Example: A book published in England could be copied freely in France or Germany.
• This created huge economic loss for authors and publishers.

---

2. Berne Convention, 1886 – FIRST BIG STEP

• First international treaty for protecting authors.

• Established three major principles:

  (a) National Treatment:
  Foreign authors must get same protection as local authors.

  (b) Automatic Protection:
  No need for registration. Copyright arises automatically.

  (c) Minimum Standards:
  Minimum duration → life of author + 50 years (now extended to 70 years in many countries).

• India is a member since 1928.

Case law reference:
Indian Performing Rights Society v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures (1977) – SC discussed India’s obligations under Berne Convention.

---

**3. Universal Copyright Convention (UCC), 1952

• Created by UNESCO.
• Purpose: To include countries (like the USA) which were not comfortable with Berne standards.
• Focus on developing countries and international cooperation.

---

4. Rome Convention, 1961 – ORIGIN OF NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS

• Protected:
  ✓ Performers
  ✓ Producers of phonograms
  ✓ Broadcasting organisations
• Recognised for the first time that copyright alone is not enough because others also invest skill, labour, and money.

---

**5. TRIPS Agreement, 1995 (WTO)

• Brought copyright and neighbouring rights under world trade law.
• Made Berne Convention provisions mandatory for all WTO members.
• Strengthened enforcement provisions—civil, criminal, border measures.

Case law:
Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (2008) – SC relied on TRIPS obligations while interpreting licensing and broadcasting rights.

---

**6. WIPO Treaties – WCT (1996) & WPPT (1996)

• Adjusted copyright for digital age.
• Recognised computer programs, databases, internet broadcasting.
• Added technological protection measures (TPM).

---

⟡ GROWTH OF NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS

Neighbouring Rights (or Related Rights) evolved due to:

1. New Creative Industries

• Recording industry
• Film and TV industry
• Sound recording and performance industries
  These industries needed economic protection separate from authors.

---

2. Technological Developments

• Radio broadcasting
• Television
• Satellite and cable transmission
• Digital streaming, YouTube, OTT platforms
  Performers and producers risk losing income because their work can be copied or transmitted globally without control.

---

3. Cross-Border Piracy

• Sound recordings and films could be copied in one country and sold in another.
• Domestic laws were insufficient to stop this.

---

4. Economic Contribution

Performers, producers, broadcasters invest:

• Capital
• Equipment
• Creativity
• Skill
• Labour

They needed an international legal system to protect these investments.

---

⟡ WHY WAS THERE A NEED FOR INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS?

1. Global Nature of Broadcasting

• Radio & TV transmissions are not limited to national boundaries.
• Performances can be received in multiple countries → requires harmonised protection.

---

2. Prevention of International Piracy

• Music, films and performances are easily copied and exported.
• Only international treaties can force other countries to stop piracy.

---

3. Unequal Domestic Laws

• Some countries protected performers, others did not.
• Lack of uniformity caused loss of revenue to artists and producers.

---

4. Growth of Digital Platforms

• Internet made copying effortless.
• Streaming and digital downloads required global protection rules.

---

5. Investment Protection

• Producers, broadcasters invest very high capital.
• Without protection, investors hesitate to fund creative industries.

---

⟡ IMPORTANT CASE LAWS RELATED TO GROWTH OF COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS

1. Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures (1977 SC)

• Recognised importance of protecting authors and performing industries.
• Referred to international copyright obligations.

2. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries (2008 SC)

• Related to broadcasting and licensing rights.
• Court interpreted rights consistent with international treaties (TRIPS).

3. Video Master v. Nishi Productions (1998 Bombay HC)

• Recognised film producers’ economic rights against video piracy.

---

⟡ CONCLUSION

The evolution of copyright and neighbouring rights at the international level shows a continuous response to technological and economic changes. Starting from the Berne Convention, to Rome Convention, TRIPS and WIPO treaties, all frameworks aim to provide cross-border protection to:

• Authors
• Performers
• Producers
• Broadcasters

The need for an international system developed because piracy, broadcasting, and digital media operate globally, and only international cooperation can ensure effective protection and economic benefit to creators.