Copyright Infringement and Related Lawsuits

ABSTRACT

Copyright infringement has been a contentious issue ever since the inception of the digital age. With the rapid advancement of technology and the ease of sharing digital content, protecting intellectual property has become an increasingly complex challenge. Recent lawsuits surrounding copyright infringement highlight the evolving nature of this issue and the critical role that the legal system plays in safeguarding creators' rights.

The internet has transformed the way we consume and distribute content. While it offers unprecedented opportunities for creators to reach a global audience, it has also paved the way for rampant copyright infringement. Peer-to-peer file sharing, streaming platforms, social media, and user-generated content have all contributed to the proliferation of copyrighted material without proper authorization.

---

The rights of a copyright owner include - making the work available to the public, releasing the work, public performance, translation, creating recordings, publicizing, making modifications, distributing copies, and preventing unauthorized use by third parties.

According to the Copyright Act of 1957, using a work that has been granted copyright without the owner's consent constitutes copyright infringement. A third party who intentionally or inadvertently utilises or copies another person's work without giving them credit commits infringement. Primary and secondary infringement are the two categories into which it is typically divided. While secondary infringement happens when illegal transactions like the sale or import of pirated goods occur, primary infringement happens when there is an actual act of copying.

Copyright infringement occurs when someone violates the exclusive rights of a copyright holder, such as copying, distributing, or adapting their work without permission. Copyright protects a wide range of creative works, including music, literature, films, software, and even architectural designs. Infringement can take various forms, from downloading pirated movies to using copyrighted images in marketing materials without proper authorization.

Several high-profile copyright infringement lawsuits have captured public attention in recent years, shedding light on the complexities of intellectual property law. One such case is the ongoing battle between Oracle and Google, which revolves around the use of Java APIs in Google's Android operating system. The case has raised questions about the scope of copyright protection for software interfaces and the concept of fair use.

Similarly, the Apple vs. Epic Games case revolves around allegations of antitrust violations by Apple in its App Store policies and the removal of Epic Games' popular game, Fortnite, from the App Store due to a direct payment system implemented by Epic Games.

Apple Vs. Epic Games[i]

The ongoing legal battle between Epic Games and Apple centers around the dispute over in-app purchase commissions and whether Apple's App Store practices violate antitrust laws. The drama began when Epic introduced an alternate way for players to purchase in-game currency for Fortnite, bypassing Apple's 30% cut on App Store transactions. This move led to Apple removing Fortnite from the App Store and suspending Epic's developer account, prompting a legal showdown.

Epic's CEO, Tim Sweeney, believed that Apple's 30% fee was excessive and that users should have the option to make purchases through alternative methods. Epic sued both Apple and Google, initiating a #FreeFortnite campaign that encouraged a boycott of Apple products. Apple countered with its own lawsuit against Epic.

Initially, it appeared that Epic was not faring well in the case, as the judge ruled in favor of Apple in keeping Fortnite off the App Store. However, the ruling also ordered Apple to unblock Epic's developer accounts, crucial because Epic supports Unreal Engine, a 3D graphics engine used by many games. Losing access to the engine would have been detrimental to Epic and other developers.

The lawsuit dragged on for over a year until Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a mixed ruling on September 10, 2021. While Apple won on nine out of ten counts, it was prevented from prohibiting developers from adding links to third-party payment methods within their apps. The judge also rejected the idea that Apple was a monopoly, instead categorizing it as a duopoly with Google.

Apple was awarded $3.6 million, representing 30% of the revenue withheld by Epic during its attempt to bypass the App Store. Apple saw this as a validation of its App Store practices, while Epic and Tim Sweeney expressed disappointment with the ruling.

Now, the case is being brought back to court, driven primarily by financial motives. Fortnite relies heavily on in-app purchases for revenue, with Apple taking a substantial 30% cut. Epic refuses to pay this "Apple tax," and Apple, in turn, refuses to change its profitable App Store model, estimated to bring in $15 billion to $20 billion annually.

Apple seeks to overturn the order allowing developers to inform users about alternative in-app purchase methods, while Epic aims to challenge the finding that Apple did not violate antitrust laws. The battle continues to revolve around the fundamental question of whether Apple's App Store policies stifle competition and innovation or represent fair business practices. The outcome of this high-stakes legal showdown will have significant implications for the future of app distribution and in-app purchases across the mobile ecosystem.

Source: http://surl.li/lwvoj

Oracle Vs. Google[ii]

The Oracle v. Google case revolved around the copyrightability of Java APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) and whether Google's use of these APIs in its Android operating system constituted copyright infringement. APIs are crucial for software communication, enabling programs to interact with one another. Oracle initially sued Google in 2010 for using Java APIs in Android without a license.

In May 2012, Judge William Alsup ruled that APIs are not subject to copyright protection because they constitute a utilitarian and functional set of symbols necessary for innovation and collaboration in the tech industry. This decision was pivotal in preventing the monopolization of APIs, which are fundamental for software development.

However, Oracle appealed the ruling, leading to a Federal Circuit decision in May 2014 that contradicted Judge Alsup's decision. The Federal Circuit held that Java APIs were copyrightable, though it left open the possibility of a fair use defense for Google.

Google then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit's decision, but the Court denied the petition in June 2015. This meant that the case would return to the district court for a trial on the fair use defense.

In May 2016, a jury unanimously found in favor of Google, asserting that its use of the Java APIs qualified as fair use. However, the Federal Circuit once again reversed this verdict in March 2018, arguing that Google's use was not fair use as a matter of law.

Google petitioned for a rehearing, but it was denied in August 2018. Subsequently, Google filed another petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2019. The Court granted Google's petition in November 2019.

After hearing oral arguments in October 2020, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in April 2021. The Court ruled in favor of Google, affirming that its use of the Java APIs was fair use as a matter of law. This landmark decision established a crucial precedent that supported programmers, developers, and the tech industry at large, ensuring that APIs could be used without undue copyright restrictions, fostering innovation, and allowing for the continued development of software interfaces. The case's outcome clarified the boundaries of API copyright and upheld the importance of fair use in the software industry.

Yash Raj Films Pvt. Limited V. Sri Sai Ganesh Productions[iii]

In the case of Yash Raj Films Pvt. Limited v. Sri Sai Ganesh Productions, the plaintiff, Yash Raj Films, alleged copyright infringement against Sri Sai Ganesh Productions, claiming that the defendant's film "Jabardasth" copied substantial elements from Yash Raj Films' "Band Baaja Baaraat." The case raised several key issues that the court had to address.

Firstly, the court had to determine whether copyright protection extended to a cinematographic film and the underlying works that comprise it. The court cited the case of MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Ltd. as a reference, which established that copyright indeed exists in a cinematograph film and the various components that constitute it. The court emphasized the requirement of originality, highlighting that for copyright to exist in a cinematographic film, there must be an original work as per Section 13(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, read in conjunction with Section 13(3)(a) and 2(d) of the Act.

Secondly, the court needed to clarify the interpretation of the phrase "to make a copy of the film" as mentioned in Section 14(d)(i) of the Copyright Act. The court ruled that this phrase does not solely refer to the physical duplication of the film but encompasses a broader scope. Since films are protected as original works, the court emphasized the importance of applying the "test of originality," as established in the case of R.G Anand v. Deluxe Films. This test involves distinguishing two films based on their "substance, foundation, and kernel."

Ultimately, the court found in favor of the plaintiff, Yash Raj Films. It concluded that the defendant's film, "Jabardasth," had indeed replicated the fundamental and essential features of the plaintiff's film, "Band Baaja Baaraat." The court recognized substantial and material similarities in terms of theme, plot, character sketches, and expressions, among other elements. This judgment upheld the copyright protection of cinematographic films and their constituent components while also emphasizing the importance of the originality criterion and the "test of originality" in copyright infringement cases involving films.

Evolving Legal Framework

The landscape of copyright infringement and related lawsuits continues to evolve as technology advances. Courts must grapple with new forms of infringement, such as online piracy, streaming, and deep-fakes. Additionally, international copyright treaties and agreements play a role in shaping the legal framework for intellectual property protection.

As these cases unfold, they set legal precedents that will influence future disputes and shape the direction of copyright law. Creators and consumers alike must stay informed about these developments to navigate the increasingly complex terrain of intellectual property rights. Ultimately, the battle against copyright infringement underscores the importance of protecting creativity while fostering a culture of innovation and fair use in the digital age.

References [i] EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE, INC., No. 21-16506 (9th Cir. 2023) [ii] Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) [iii] Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sri Sai Ganesh Productions & ors, CS(COMM), 1329 of 2016

---

*This article was authored by Ritika Agrawal, Student from Symbiosis Law School, Noida and reviewed by Pihoo Agrawal, Student from Symbiosis Law School, Noida.