Title: ST+ART INDIA FOUNDATION & ANR. v. ACKO GENERAL INSURANCE
Summary
St+art India, a public art organization, filed a copyright infringement complaint against insurance company Acko General Insurance in the Delhi High Court. The suit ordered Acko to remove its social media posts featuring a mural titled “Humanity.” St+art India claimed ownership of the artistic work and moral rights over the production. The insurance company faced allegations of exploiting the moral for commercial gain through social media posts and billboard advertisements. The court determined that the defendant’s advertisement replicated the mural, and an examination would be necessary to determine whether the conduct constituted fair dealing or fair use. The court issued the order provisionally, allowing St+art India to provide any URLs that serve as direct links to the mural in question.
About the case
St+art India, an organization that works on public art projects, filed a copyright infringement complaint against insurance company Acko General Insurance in the Delhi High Court. The suit ordered the company to remove its social media posts that featured a mural titled “Humanity.” Following the insurance company’s consent to remove social media posts and other online content containing the mural, Justice Prathiba M Singh issued the following directive: “…as a result, the Defendant is obligated to remove the aforementioned listings within a period of 72 hours.”
The Plaintiffs may also provide the Defendant with any URLs that serve as direct links to the mural in question on the Defendant’s posts. “The foregoing shall not prejudice the rights and disputes of either party.” Under Section 2(c)(i) and Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act of 1957, St+art India asserted ownership of the artistic work in its lawsuit. As acknowledged in Section 57 of the statute, the organization additionally claimed moral rights over the production. In accordance with the lawsuit, the mural was jointly produced by an artist and St+art India in accordance with a contractual arrangement, without any third-party licensing of rights.
The insurance company faced allegations that it exploited the morals for commercial gain through social media posts and billboard advertisements. The insurance company’s counsel concluded that the dispute had been resolved as a result of the plaintiff organization’s legal notices and that the insurance company did not anticipate any additional litigation. An additional point was made regarding the removal of the hoarding itself. As part of the lawsuit summonses, Justice Singh noted that the hoarding that incorporated the mural is unmistakably an advertisement and that, despite the insurance company’s confirmation of its removal, the mural continued to persist on online platforms. In accordance with the Copyright Act of 1957, the court noted that a determination is necessary regarding whether the insurance company’s conduct constituted fair dealing. “In the current instance, it is indisputable that the defendant’s advertisement replicated the mural. It was not possible to assume that the work in question was in the public domain and could be utilized in the manner described by the Defendant. This also applies to advertising, albeit for a social cause, as opposed to simple public discourse. The court stated that in light of the defendant’s use for a commercial purpose, an examination would be necessary to determine whether the conduct constituted fair dealing or fair use. As an additional clarification, the court stated that it had not rendered a verdict on the legal issues at hand and that the order had been issued provisionally, in light of the insurance company’s arguments.
