<p>However, contrary to this, the true position is that the apex court judgment upheld her copyright claim in respect of "literary and artistic works" which was based on a will Karanth had executed before his death in 1997. She had approached the Udupi district judge contending that her copyright was violated by the Academy of General Education and MGM College, Manipal when they staged a ballet forms in Delhi in 2001 without her consent. The district judge upheld her claim and decreed a permanent injunction to protect her copyright and restrained the Academy and MGM College from staging the seven ballets/prasangas. <br /><br />The same was subsequently upheld by the Karnataka High Court when it dismissed an appeal by the Academy and MGM College against the Udupi district judge's permanent injunction. But the High Court modified the lower court's order a bit stating that the Academy and MGM College could stage the ballets in accordance with the provisions of the Copyrights Act, 1957.<br /><br />The Academy and MGM College preferred an appeal against the High Court judgment in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court and the High Court's judgments as regards Malini Mallya's copyright. But it also went on to elaborate the High Court's judgment by stating the conditions under which the Academy and MGM College can stage the ballets in future within the bounds of the Copyrights Act. <br /><br />The apex court clarified that subject to the limits laid down by Section 51 (1)(a) (i) and (1) of the Copyrights Act, the Academy and MGM College could stage those seven ballets for private use, research, criticism or review of literary dramatic, musical or artistic work. <br /><br />Staging by staff and students of an educational institution with limited audience of staff, students, their parents/guardians and those who are connected with the institution, and staging by amateur club or society without receiving any remuneration or consideration etc for the benefit of religious institutions are not subject to copyright or decree of injunction. Thus, our February 22, 2009 report stands corrected.<br /><br /><br /></p>
<p>However, contrary to this, the true position is that the apex court judgment upheld her copyright claim in respect of "literary and artistic works" which was based on a will Karanth had executed before his death in 1997. She had approached the Udupi district judge contending that her copyright was violated by the Academy of General Education and MGM College, Manipal when they staged a ballet forms in Delhi in 2001 without her consent. The district judge upheld her claim and decreed a permanent injunction to protect her copyright and restrained the Academy and MGM College from staging the seven ballets/prasangas. <br /><br />The same was subsequently upheld by the Karnataka High Court when it dismissed an appeal by the Academy and MGM College against the Udupi district judge's permanent injunction. But the High Court modified the lower court's order a bit stating that the Academy and MGM College could stage the ballets in accordance with the provisions of the Copyrights Act, 1957.<br /><br />The Academy and MGM College preferred an appeal against the High Court judgment in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court and the High Court's judgments as regards Malini Mallya's copyright. But it also went on to elaborate the High Court's judgment by stating the conditions under which the Academy and MGM College can stage the ballets in future within the bounds of the Copyrights Act. <br /><br />The apex court clarified that subject to the limits laid down by Section 51 (1)(a) (i) and (1) of the Copyrights Act, the Academy and MGM College could stage those seven ballets for private use, research, criticism or review of literary dramatic, musical or artistic work. <br /><br />Staging by staff and students of an educational institution with limited audience of staff, students, their parents/guardians and those who are connected with the institution, and staging by amateur club or society without receiving any remuneration or consideration etc for the benefit of religious institutions are not subject to copyright or decree of injunction. Thus, our February 22, 2009 report stands corrected.<br /><br /><br /></p>
