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 [email protected], nilesh suchdev <nilesh.such...@...> 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...@...> 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 <nilesh.such...@...<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 > > > <sunila...@...<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. > > > > > > > >
