Module 4 Q.

21

Explain the Copyright Case Law “David v/s Macaques”, “Happy Birthday To you
Case Law”, “Amitabh Bacchan to lose Copyrights over his Father’s works in 2063”

The three copyright cases touch upon various aspects of copyright law, each highlighting
different legal principles and challenges. Let's delve into each one:
1. David Slater vs. Naruto (the Macaque)
This case, often mislabeled as "David v/s Macaques," actually involves British nature
photographer David Slater and a crested black macaque named Naruto. The controversy
began when Naruto took a selfie with Slater's camera, which Slater then published. The
question arose about who held the copyright: Slater, as the owner of the camera, or Naruto, as
the subject and "photographer." The U.S.-based organization PETA (People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Naruto, claiming the macaque should own
the copyright. However, the U.S. courts decided that copyright law does not apply to non-
human creators, thereby ruling in favor of Slater, albeit indirectly, as the primary issue was
the non-applicability of copyright to animals.
2. "Happy Birthday to You" Case Law
The "Happy Birthday to You" case refers to a legal battle over the copyright status of the song
"Happy Birthday to You." For many years, Warner/Chappell Music claimed to own the
copyright and collected licensing fees. However, a class-action lawsuit filed in 2013
challenged this claim, arguing that the song should be in the public domain. In 2016, a U.S.
District Court judge ruled that Warner/Chappell's claim to the copyright of the song's lyrics
was not valid. The music publishing company agreed to settle by paying back $14 million to
those who had paid licensing fees and acknowledging the song as public domain, making it
freely available for use without requiring payment for copyright licensing.
3. Amitabh Bachchan and Copyrights over His Father’s Works
The mention of "Amitabh Bachchan to lose Copyrights over his Father’s works in 2063"
refers to the copyright laws in India, which protect literary works for 60 years after the
author's death. Amitabh Bachchan's father, Harivansh Rai Bachchan, was a renowned poet
who passed away in 2003. According to Indian copyright law, the copyright in his works
would extend until 2063, 60 years after his death. After this period, his works will enter the
public domain, meaning they will be freely available for the public to use without needing
permission from the Bachchan family or paying for copyrights. This is a general application
of copyright law rather than a specific legal case.
Each of these cases illustrates unique facets of copyright law, from its applicability to non-
human creators, the challenge of longstanding copyright claims, to the duration of copyright
protection based on jurisdictional statutes.
Module 5 Q.23
Case study on Curcuma(Turmeric Patent), Neem Patent, Basmati Patent.
The cases of the Curcuma (Turmeric), Neem, and Basmati patents are significant in the
discourse on intellectual property rights, particularly regarding biopiracy and the protection
of traditional knowledge. These cases highlight the challenges faced by countries rich in
biodiversity and traditional knowledge when such knowledge is patented elsewhere without
proper acknowledgment or benefit-sharing. Let's delve into each case:
1. Curcuma (Turmeric) Patent
The turmeric case involved a patent (US Patent No. 5,401,504) granted in 1995 to the
University of Mississippi Medical Center for the use of turmeric (Curcuma longa) in wound
healing. India contested this patent on the grounds that the medicinal uses of turmeric,
particularly for wound healing, had been well known in Indian traditional medicine for
centuries and were thus not novel. The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR),
India, filed a legal challenge with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In 1997, the
USPTO overturned the patent, recognizing the extensive documentation of turmeric's use in
Indian traditional knowledge, making this case a landmark victory against biopiracy.
2. Neem Patent
The Neem case involves a series of patents related to the use of extracts from the Neem tree,
which is native to the Indian subcontinent and has been widely used for centuries in
traditional Indian medicine. One of the most contentious patents was granted to W.R. Grace
and the United States Department of Agriculture for a method of controlling fungi on plants
by the application of a hydrophobic extracted Neem oil. This patent (European Patent EP
436257) faced opposition from several NGOs and the Indian government, arguing that the
pesticidal use of Neem was well known in Indian traditional practices and thus not
patentable. After a prolonged legal battle, the European Patent Office (EPO) revoked this
patent in 2000 on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step.
3. Basmati Patent
The Basmati case revolves around a patent (US Patent No. 5,663,484) granted in 1997 to
RiceTec, a U.S. company, for a method of breeding basmati rice lines. The patent claimed
rights over several lines of basmati-like rice and the use of the term "Basmati" for rice grown
outside India and Pakistan, where traditional basmati rice is cultivated. This led to an uproar
in India, with claims that the patent not only appropriated traditional knowledge but also
misused the Basmati name, which is associated with specific geographical and quality
characteristics. Following extensive negotiations and legal challenges, the USPTO
reexamined the patent and, in 2001, invalidated most of the claims. RiceTec was allowed to
retain the patent only for some of the plant-breeding techniques, not for the basmati name or
rice per se.
These case studies are emblematic of the broader issues related to intellectual property rights
that intersect with traditional knowledge and biodiversity. They underscore the importance of
adequate documentation and protection of traditional knowledge to prevent its unauthorized
patenting and use by entities outside the originating communities.