Khushi Doshi
Published on: April 28, 2022 at 17:18 IST
News Nation Network Pvt Ltd was barred from utilizing Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd’s content on its stations by the Bombay High Court.
Because the License Agreement between the two companies was ended, Justice NJ Jamadar stated that the news channel’s continued usage of Shemaroo’s content would result in irreparable losses for the former.
As a result, the Solitary Court granted Shemaroo Ad-Interim Relief and barred News Nation from utilising its programming on its networks.
The Case has been rescheduled for a hearing on June 9.
On July 19, 2019, the two firms signed a non-exclusive deal that permitted News Nation to broadcast and exploit Shemaroo Entertainment’s audio-visual song clips, scenes, and dialogue clips on its channels from July 1, 2019, until June 30, 2022.
At the request of the Defendants, the Agreement was cancelled in August 2020. They allegedly continued to broadcast audio-visual songs, clippings, and sequences from the Plaintiff’s Copyrighted cinematographic films on their channels, according to Reports.
Despite Shemaroo’s warnings, News Nation is said to have refused to pay damages and instead Defended its use of the video by claiming the principles of fair use and De Minimis (lacking importance).
News Nation’s lawyer, Aman Kacheria, argued that the Defendant, as a responsible news organization, disseminated the Plaintiff’s information in the course of its normal and customary business of reporting news and other programs.
He argued that the Defendant’s use of the Plaintiff’s work was permissible under Section 52 of the Copyright Act since it was done in good faith.
He argued that the instant Case was barred by the De Minimis Non-Curat Lex Principle since the Defendant had only used the Plaintiff’s material for a short time and for a good reason.
Plaintiff had accepted the request for Termination of the License Agreement on certain terms, which were affirmed by the Defendant, according to the High Court.
As a result, the Defendant’s actions could not be justified because it was using the Plaintiff’s content in a way that the Terminated Agreement allowed.