point well made. let's hope for the best...
rgds, nilesh
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:00 PM, sarbajitr <sroy1947@yahoo.com > wrote:
2) Section 9 of RTI Act gives discretion to PIO --> "may".
"Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State."
Of course there are SC judgments which say that "may" = "shall" but this is field which only enriches senior advocates.
1) Did you make the work available to the "public" ? Did you actually assert your copyright when you submitted the work for competition. Very often "kites" flown during competitions become the property of the competition organisers.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com , nilesh suchdev <nilesh.suchdev@...> wrote:
>
> I appreciate your observations. My answers:
>
> 1 The design was published in Feb 2010 (though I fail to grasp the relevance
> of this)
> 2 The RTI Act Section 9 itself gives cognizance to Copyright ownership
> (other than that vested in the state), and hence RTI Act overriding
> disclosure in case of Copyrighted material does not come into play.
>
> Trust that helps
>
> Best regards, nilesh
>
>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 8:19 AM, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@...> wrote:> > On 6/21/10, nilesh suchdev <nilesh.suchdev@
>
> >
> >
> > Dear Nilesh
> >
> > The discussion you held on Hum Janenge requires certain
> > clarifications. Unfortunately
> > the RTI (and general law) experts of this group (me included) are
> > banned from posting
> > on Hum Janenge.
> >
> > For example.
> >
> > 1) When / How was your design first published (as defined in CR Act) ?
> > "3. Meaning of publication.: For the purposes of this Act,
> > "publication" means making a work available to the public by issue of
> > copies or by communicating the work to the public."
> >
> > 2) How do you counter RTI activists and Shailesh Gandhi who insist
> > that section 22 of RTI Act over-rides all other laws when it comes to
> > information disclosure ?
> >
> > Sarbajit.
> >
> >...<nilesh.suchdev%40gmail.com>> > > > On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@..
> > wrote:
> > > thank you sunil ji,
> > >
> > > the fact is that the presentation has only a password to modify, not to
> > open
> > > it, as the jury is expected to review my presentation to finalize the
> > > winning entry. (incidentally, i have denied sharing the password for
> > another
> > > presentation to the CM office in the past, as i doubted their sole
> > intention
> > > was to remove my ownership information before passing the presentation to
> > > the CM)
> > >
> > > to the best of my knowledge, there is no provision under the copyright
> > act
> > > to copyright each and every of our creation (we produce hundreds of
> > > presentations, and thousands of drawings, models, etc each year). (I have
> > > also studied the Copyright Act, with its latest amendments.)
> > >
> > > i quote the Section 12 of the *Conditions of Engagement and Scale of
> > Charges
> > > Preamble *by *Council of Architecture, *which is a govt. body formed
> > under
> > > the Architects Act 1972, an Act of Parliament, and which regulates the
> > > profession of Architects across the country. It is mandatory for an
> > > individual to be registered with the Council to use the Style and Title
> > of
> > > Architect.*
> > > *
> > >
> > > *12. OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHT :*
> > > Architectural design is an intellectual property of the Architect. The
> > > drawings, specifications, documents and models as instruments of service
> > are
> > > the property of the Architect whether the project, for which they are
> > made,
> > > is executed or not. The Client shall retain copies of the Architect's
> > > models, drawings, specifications and other documents for his information
> > and
> > > use in connection with the project. These shall not be used for any other
> > > project by the Client or the Architect or any other person, except for
> > the
> > > repetition as stipulated in the Scale of Charges
> > >
> > > the Preamble can be referred at
> > http://www.coa.gov.in/practice/ practice. htm
> > >
> > > i think i should seek exemption citing section 81d along with section 9,
> > > mentioning the above clause from COA preamble, citing the link, and other
> > > references, to not share the presentation. i do not think the tourism
> > dept
> > > should have any problem to that, as in the past they have already denied
> > > sharing the copies of presentation, citing that they are copyright
> > > properties of their respective owners.
> > >
> > > my above exercise was more aimed at arriving a logical way of presenting
> > my
> > > denial, while giving due respect to the act.
> > >
> > > i have received valuable guidance from the forum, and appreciate the
> > same.
> > > will try to post a copy of my proposed reply here, though i dare say i
> > may
> > > not be able to wait for responses on the same, as a lot of time has
> > already
> > > passed, and i cannot afford to not register my denial. but the catharsis
> > > could happen only owing to the various responses...
> > >
> > > best regards,
> > > nilesh suchdev
> > >
> > >.<sunilahya%40gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Dear Nilesh Suchdev,
> > >>
> > >> 1. If you have officially copyrighted your presentation under "The
> > >> Copyright
> > >> Act, 1957" then you may seek exemption under section 9 of the RTI Act.
> > >
> >
> >
>
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment