this five day long homecoming welcome of Goddess Durga is close to every Bengalis

heart and soul.Durga Puja means more to us than just a religious festival.It is a

celebration of life, culture, popular customs and traditions … it is a time for coming

together, of reunion and rejuvenation, of the rebirth of our piousness and last but

not the least, the season to love, to share and to care.
Please Visit For More detail
http://desidirectory.com/indian-festival-events/

sorry for taking so long to reply. im really no expert but i know the basics of IP because i studied law at university.

Absence of profit motive/monetization of user base.

copyright is a bundle of rights relating to a literary/art work. this includes adaptations of that work.

so while copyright is about compensation of the artist, it is also about giving control over exactly how the work is used to the artist.

all that needs to be done to prove a violation is to show that a work was used/adapted without the permission of the copyright holder. that is enough.

so the profit motive/monetization of a base of people is not really a mitigating factor.

it is a procedural requirement of the Delhi High Court to pray for liquidated damages (meaning the action of X has cost me Rs. 5,000 damages) because that is the primary remedy for copyright violation, i.e., damages along with an injunction.

finally, the law allows for fair use (eg- reproducing excerpts for examinations) as well as never takes into consideration trivialities (little children making harry potter hats).

i feel the pandal being a massive one does not fall into any of the above categories. the judgment is robin hoodish as you point out.

@ as a precedent:

a single judge bench of a high court sitting in original jurisdiction is the lowest form of precedent creation (say as opposed to a 13 judge bench of the Supreme Court sitting in appeal).

i dont think it really binds anyone but would be of some consolation to the hapless lawyer who tried to argue that such usage would not constitute copyright violation. there are loads of crappy precedents in all areas of law.

in regards bollywood: david dhawan has been used by the makers of hitch for partner, numerous music directors have been sued by malayasian and arabian bands. bollywood is waking up the world of international copyright very fast.

Pujo Greetings. And thanks for the response –it was helpful.

Pujo greetings. Your query was for WTF, but I’ll add my opinion too. Hope you don’t mind :

1. Absence of profit motive & scenario (pirated sales to use proceeds for social good)

The initial and prime transaction is a commercial one, which has generated profit. As such, it is under IPR ambit. Utilization of the commercial proceeds is a different transaction / consideration.

2. Monetization of user-base : JKR’s lawyers could argue that the revenue generated is being used to cover costs for the Pujo so that people can participate without paying an entry fee. In other words, a copyrighted artifact has been used to subsidize a celebration.

JKR may find it difficult to establish this, as other pandals manage to offer a similar product, while employing the same finance matrix and without taking recourse to the copyrighted artifact (Hogwarts).

JKR will have to establish that the increase in revenue arising from utilising this artifact is substantial. She could study the marginal increase in revenues vis-a-vis other years and other pandals from the Pandal Committe Accounts.

3. Problem of Precedent – “What about, – in future? What about in some of the other religious celebrations where commercial interests dominate? Could the judgment set an unhealthy precedent”?

My suggestion above of a Standing Committee will be useful here. They could issue guidelines on such issues, and act as a point of contact for queries from pandals as well as concerns from international bodies. As globalisation marches on, we are no longer inured from such international consideration.

this is total bull. us patents haldi and neem and yoga and we don’t say anything!!! instead we attack our own ppl from crap like this!

I seem to have missed a lot of action;
Well, I have a few specific as well as general questions for you since you seem to be a legal expert.

Absence of profit motive

Some of the commentators have argued that the absence of the profit motive is the real clincher in deciding the case against JKR. Consider the following scenario- I sell pirated CDs and use the proceeds (in a verifiable way) to support a couple of NGOs. Do the IPR laws stop applying to me? Doesn’t that tantamount to playing Robin Hood in a modern sense?

Monetization of user-base

There was considerable debate how existence of a user-base does not directly benefit the pujo committee. But does that matter? – As long as merchandise is being sold and ads are being aired, thanks to the user-base and footfalls. JKR’s lawyers could argue that the revenue generated is being used to cover costs for the Pujo so that people can participate without paying an entry fee. In other words, a copyrighted artifact has been used to subsidize a celebration. I suppose these guys would still need to quantify the increase in footfalls to claim any compensation.

Problem of Precedent

I am aware that the court has included a warning in its judgment, but assume for a moment it hasn’t. I am willing to believe that the Pujo, as it exists currently in WB, is free of commercial motivations and essentially an act of celebration and camaraderie. What about, – in future? What about in some of the other religious celebrations where commercial interests dominate? Could the judgment set an unhealthy precedent?

While it’s ironical that, as GB pointed out, we’re debating almost a non-issue while at least 99% of Bollywood should be coughing up hefty compensation, I am merely interested in knowing more about the interpretation of IPR laws.