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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > On 6/21/10, nilesh suchdev > <[email protected]<nilesh.suchdev%40gmail.com>> > 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 > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Sunil Ahya > > <[email protected]<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. > > > >
