point well made. let's hope for the best... rgds, nilesh
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:00 PM, sarbajitr <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>, 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 <sunilahya@ > ...<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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
