The Delhi High Court in the case ST+ART India Foundation and Anr. v. ACKO General Insurance observed and has directed the insurance company Acko General Insurance to take down its social media posts using a mural titled, ‘Humanity’ in the suit filed for copyright infringement by St+art India, an organization that aims works on art projects in public spaces.
The bench headed by Justice Prathiba M Singh in the case observed and has directed that the Defendant shall take down the said listings within 72 hours. Thus, the Specific URLs wherein displaying the said mural on the posts of the Defendant’s, if any, may also be communicated to the Defendant by the Plaintiffs.
The court stated that the above order passed shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties.
In the present case, it has been claimed by the St+art India that it has the copyright of the artistic work under Section 2(c)(i) and Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Therefore, it has also been asserted by the organization the moral rights over the work as recognised under Section 57 of the enactment.
The court in the case observed and has stated that the mural was created by an artist in collaboration with St+art India under an agreement, for which admittedly no rights have been licensed to any third parties.
It was also alleged before the court that the insurance company had used the moral in an advertisement by way of a hoarding and social media posts for its commercial benefit.
The counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted before the court that the that the legal notices issued by the plaintiff organization had led to a resolution of dispute, after which it did not expect any further litigation.
Further, it was also submitted before the court that the hoarding itself had been removed.
The bench of Justice Singh in the case observed and issued summon in the in the suit that the hoarding incorporating the mural is clearly an advertisement and that though the insurance company had confirmed its removal, it still continued to remain on online platforms.
The court stated that the issue as to whether the conduct of the insurance companies would constitute fair dealing or not as stated under the Copyright Act, 1957, requires adjudication.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that there being no doubt in the present case that the advertisement of the Defendant reproduced the mural. There could not have been a presumption that the same was a public domain work that could be used in the manner as the Defendant has done. The same being not for a mere public messaging but for an advertisement – albeit, with a social cause and that the use being for a commercial purpose by the Defendant, the question whether the same qualifies as fair dealing or fair use, would require to be examined.
It has also been clarified by the said court that it had not made an opinion on the legal issues in the matter wherein the order was passed at an ad-interim stage, while considering the submissions made on behalf of the insurance company.
Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration February 02, 2024.
The counsel, Advocates Pravin Anand, Mr. Dhruv Anand, Ms. Udita Patro, Ms. Sampurnaa Sanyal and Ms. Nimrat Singh appeared for the Plaintiff.
The counsel, Advocates Peeyoosh Kalra, Ms V. Mohini and Ms. Aarti Aggarwal represented the respondent.
