User talk:Diannaa/Archive 95
Latest comment: 11 days ago by Ved548 in topic Not all Indian govt works are protected by copyright | Court works completely exempt from copyright
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 90 | ← | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
Not all Indian govt works are protected by copyright | Court works completely exempt from copyright
Hi Diannaa,
I notice a message on my talk page wherein you mentioned Indian government works are protected by copyright for 60 years.
On this, please note that Indian government works those published in official gazette and laws are all exempted from copyright infringement.
My edit which is deleted relates to copy paste from a court decision which also is specifically exempt.
Suggest you to refer to Section 52 of Indian copyright act, 1957.
aditional reading; https://spicyip.com/2008/01/are-indian-court-judgments.html
Request make suitable edits to your policy to create exemptions as per Section 52 Ved548 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- The place where I got the information is at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India which specifies that "copyright subsists until 60 years from the year in which the work is first published." This includes "any court, tribunal or other judicial authority in India." You can also view the actual legislation here, where it says:
— Diannaa (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)"(k) “Government work” means a work which is made or published by or under the direction or control of— (i) the Government or any department of the Government; (ii) any Legislature in India; (iii) any court, tribunal or other judicial authority in India"
- What makes spicyip.com a reliable source for information about copyright law in India? — Diannaa (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Commons guidance falls a little short because it fails to mention the exceptions for government and judicial works. It's just listed as one of many copyright templates in a list. See c:Template:EdictGov-India which indicates that the court decision would not be under copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well I've undone the revision deletion, but now I'm not so sure that I should have, because the content does not appear to have been copied from the court documents (nor does it closely copy the citation provided, which was this page). Instead, it is a match for this document, which is an analysis published by the Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas law firm in Mumbai. @Ved548: have you got a link to the actual court document/judgement so that we can see what was said there? Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Diannaa
- Please see the case law.
- Refer to paragraph 11: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126246109/
- The same text appears in multiple court judgements
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1350290/
- Well I've undone the revision deletion, but now I'm not so sure that I should have, because the content does not appear to have been copied from the court documents (nor does it closely copy the citation provided, which was this page). Instead, it is a match for this document, which is an analysis published by the Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas law firm in Mumbai. @Ved548: have you got a link to the actual court document/judgement so that we can see what was said there? Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Commons guidance falls a little short because it fails to mention the exceptions for government and judicial works. It's just listed as one of many copyright templates in a list. See c:Template:EdictGov-India which indicates that the court decision would not be under copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Ved548 (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dianna, happy to pitch in. SpicyIP is a credible source of copyright and IP law in India. Further the analysis pointed out above i.e., government publications and judgments being exempt from the ambit of infringement under Copyright law appears to be in line with the Copyright Act in my understanding too. 183.82.124.144 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello 183.82.124.144, IP from India. How did you happen to run across this discussion on your fifth edit, your first in nearly two years? It just looks like Ved548 logged out to try to show a random person supporting their position. Not cute, and not actually allowed. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ved548:Thanks. When I compare the Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas document with your prose, Earwig's tool shows a 61.7% overlap. But when I use the same tool to compare your prose with the actual court document, it shows only a 33.3% overlap. In other words, there's a lot of prose in your version that matches the law firm document that is not present in the actual court document. So I am not going to be able to restore it. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Diannaa, I get your point. I have modified the text this morning (India time) to more closely resemble the text of the Court decision.
- The conclusion as per my understanding is neither the law firm nor we have the right to copyright in that text.
- If you still unconvinced, I am fine for you to remove the text. I will rewrite it over the weekend. Ved548 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have re-written the content to comply with our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ved548:Thanks. When I compare the Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas document with your prose, Earwig's tool shows a 61.7% overlap. But when I use the same tool to compare your prose with the actual court document, it shows only a 33.3% overlap. In other words, there's a lot of prose in your version that matches the law firm document that is not present in the actual court document. So I am not going to be able to restore it. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Diannaa, That was my acquittance who wrote the response from the IP when I discussed with him the copyright law and the discussion with you on Wiki.
- This was not intended by me. I am aware of Sockpuppetry rules. Ved548 (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neither did I ask him to reply in my support. That person is new to Wikipedia editing and actually does not have any Wiki account to my understanding. Ved548 (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Diannaa
- Can we please delete the text that has IP address visible to everyone as it has potential to reveal identities. As someone who is aware of strict sockpuppetry rules, I would never ask someone to come in my support.
- Thanks Ved548 (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you mean revision deletion, sorry, but I don't think that is one of the purposes allowed under the policy. — Diannaa (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- No. I am talking of the reply and your reply to this IP 183.82.124.144
- I am fine with revision deletion. Ved548 (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will move the whole conversation to the archive. Would that work? — Diannaa (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Diannaa. That will be helpful. Ved548 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will move the whole conversation to the archive. Would that work? — Diannaa (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you mean revision deletion, sorry, but I don't think that is one of the purposes allowed under the policy. — Diannaa (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello 183.82.124.144, IP from India. How did you happen to run across this discussion on your fifth edit, your first in nearly two years? It just looks like Ved548 logged out to try to show a random person supporting their position. Not cute, and not actually allowed. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)