Legal Analysis of Intellectual Property Rights in the... plans to launch or be associated with other shows. Please note that Viacom18 has sole, exclusive, absolute and unlimited ownership rights to all artist intellectual property rights associated with the Program including rights to the format of the Program... and/or the characteristic features or manners of 'Guthi'. » The imbroglio surrounding the much-publicized exit of 'Guthi' from the popular comedy show has attracted hordes of attention. Viacom 18 in the above notice declares that it owns all rights to the intellectual property of the artist and the format of the program. It is worth noting here that TV formats CANNOT be subject to copyright protection. Although this has been proven by several case laws around the world, Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand is a landmark case in which British presenter Hughie Green of "Opportunity Knocks" was not allowed to claim the copyright on the broadcast format because it was missing. a degree of unity or certainty sufficient to constitute a dramatic work. While the Copyright Act of 1957 remains silent on this point, the format of a broadcast would constitute only a concept or a simple idea which would in no case be capable of protection by copyright. This removes Viacom's ownership claim to the program format. Analyzing their intellectual property claim of “artist” in more detail, it is pertinent to note that the Copyright Act does not provide a definition of the term “artist”. word “artist”. Perhaps "performer" would be a more appropriate term looking at middle of paper ... its inherently distinctive character or one that has acquired a secondary meaning (i.e. meaning in the minds of the consuming public in as a source identifier for the goods or services concerned). Viacom could therefore easily claim trademark protection over the character “Guthi”. To conclude, even though it appears that Viacom has ownership rights to the character "Guthi" under the Trademark Act and passing off liability, we must remember that the reason behind all these legislations was to protect “the sweat of the brow”. The primary objective was to grant a temporary monopoly to the CREATOR of intellectual property, in order to allow him to enjoy the fruits of his labor. As the channel is not the creator, it can hardly take part in the ownership of 'Guthi.’.

Essay / Legal Analysis of Intellectual Property Rights in the... plans to launch or be associated with other shows. Please note that Viacom18 has sole, exclusive, absolute and unlimited ownership rights to all artist intellectual property rights associated with the Program including rights to the format of the Program... and/or the characteristic features or manners of 'Guthi'. » The imbroglio surrounding the much-publicized exit of 'Guthi' from the popular comedy show has attracted hordes of attention. Viacom 18 in the above notice declares that it owns all rights to the intellectual property of the artist and the format of the program. It is worth noting here that TV formats CANNOT be subject to copyright protection. Although this has been proven by several case laws around the world, Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand is a landmark case in which British presenter Hughie Green of "Opportunity Knocks" was not allowed to claim the copyright on the broadcast format because it was missing. a degree of unity or certainty sufficient to constitute a dramatic work. While the Copyright Act of 1957 remains silent on this point, the format of a broadcast would constitute only a concept or a simple idea which would in no case be capable of protection by copyright. This removes Viacom's ownership claim to the program format. Analyzing their intellectual property claim of “artist” in more detail, it is pertinent to note that the Copyright Act does not provide a definition of the term “artist”. word “artist”. Perhaps "performer" would be a more appropriate term looking at middle of paper ... its inherently distinctive character or one that has acquired a secondary meaning (i.e. meaning in the minds of the consuming public in as a source identifier for the goods or services concerned). Viacom could therefore easily claim trademark protection over the character “Guthi”. To conclude, even though it appears that Viacom has ownership rights to the character "Guthi" under the Trademark Act and passing off liability, we must remember that the reason behind all these legislations was to protect “the sweat of the brow”. The primary objective was to grant a temporary monopoly to the CREATOR of intellectual property, in order to allow him to enjoy the fruits of his labor. As the channel is not the creator, it can hardly take part in the ownership of 'Guthi.’.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch