One judge of justice Amit Bansal said that mangal can re -replace the video after removing unwanted parts, but only after sharing the revised version S or for control. The direction came after the higher advocate Chander M. Lall, who appeared for mangal, agreed to take off the undesirable parts and submit the redline version (marked to show changes) of the modified video.
Also read: Indian meme marketing boom faces legal counting because authorial battles are warming up
“Mr. Lall claims that the defendant 1 (Mangal) will bring the attacked video into the private regime and make the necessary changes in the video to remove inappropriate portions as stated at the hearing. The redline version of the video after removing parts will be provided during the day,” justice said. The video can only be published after reviewing the changes, he added. The judge stated that he could even turn to the court if he had any problems with the revised version.
The court also ordered the comedian Kunal Kama, who has more than 2.5 million followers on X, formerly Twitter, to take off his “slander” post in which he shared Mangal’s video. “This video, on his face, is scornful,” Bansal said after the court inspected the video. The court will listen to the case at the end of July.
The case stems from the Mangal video published on May 25, in which he also accused of blackmailing and blackmail. Claimed that the representative did not even demand more than £40 Lift to raise copyright strikes issued against its channel using shots or without permission.
Nor an argument
Even in his plea, which the Mint reviewed, he said that allegedly slander video damaged his business, goodwill and reputation. “Comfortable and contemptuous statements made in the attacked video have a demonstrable adverse impact on business, goodwill and credibility of the public,” the action said. He added that the video triggered extensive will, abusing news and boycott on social media.
“After the publication of the attacked video, the plaintiff experienced a significant conviction on public platforms … Many individuals demanded boycott of the applicant’s services and checked out of his platforms.”
She also also claimed that Mangal used AI tools to issue his employee’s voice and a distorted telephone conversation between the employee and one Mr. Babu. “(Mangal) has gained considerable commercial contribution from the unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s works protected by copyrights… The first video with violations has gained over 2.9 million views,” said the request. She also appointed a camera and really Checker Mohammed Zubair for their allegedly slanderous contributions to X and for reinforcement of what she even described as a “slander campaign”.
“These defendants (Kamra and Zubir) independently published another false, unfounded and harmful statement focused on the applicant and its founder. These statements lack any factual or legal basis, and it is clearly intended to delete the applicant’s reputation and reduce the plaintiff’s estimate in the public.
Also read: AR Rahman’s case revives a frequent clash. But the medicine is hard to find
Sibal also told the court that Mangal has repeatedly used the avenue video clips without permission. She also issued copyrights to the automated YouTube system, two of which were followed. He said, he said, before the third strike when Mangal published herself instead of using the formal channels.
Sibal said he even offered Mangal license for a subscription he refused. He argued that Mangal was now trying to portray the legitimate enforcement of copyrights as a coercion. He said the video used an inflammatory language such as “blackmail” and “GOONDARAJ”, which caused online abuse against or and his employees. Sibal was also looking for the John Doe command to prevent the video from spreading the video by unknown parties and saying that he had not even filed a copyright lawsuit.
Mangal’s answer
The Mangal Council of Chander M. Lall claimed that neither £40-LAKH Demand for picking up the author’s strokes was blackmail in itself. He added that she could not even require exclusive rights to shots related to the public interest report and that she focused on mangal unfairly.
Lall also said that several news reports have caused worries about behavior or and allegedly blackmail against content creators. “She did not refute these reports,” he told the court.
“Not even slightly overboard”
Legal experts stated that the aspect of copyright and the question of defamation was independent questions. “Perhaps it has even passed slightly overboard in promoting violations of copyright by mangal because it seems that their videos of Mangal are for criticism or review,” said Verma Thakur, intellectual property lawyer and senior partner of EdiPlis Counsels. “Whether the criticism of the mangala was constructive, or whether there was a case of defamation against the mangal, there are quite different questions,” she added.
Also read | Celebrity legal struggle for intellectual property: double sword
Thakur explained how he deals with these cases of copyright law, he said in general under the provisions on the fair trading of the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, some non -commercial activities in connection with the subjects protected by copyrights do not attract violations. These include limited use of work for education, reporting, commentary, reviews, parodies, etc.
She added that although there is no specific formal instructions for time limits when an extremely small part of the work protected by copyright- as 8 to 10 seconds in 10 to 15 minutes of video, can be considered as “de minimis” or insignificant use.
(Tagstotranslate) Case for defamation or
