Issues in copyright especially neighbouring rights

Hello Sanket . How are you doing? With regard to Performer’s Rights in the Copyright regime, I would like to inform you that Performers are provided the rights to prevent fixation (recording), broadcasting and communication to the public of their live performances without their consent, and the right to prevent reproduction of fixations of their performances under certain circumstances This world is the place where often creativity has been denied. Usually the owner or a creative owner of a specific thing is the victim of malpractices. The ownership is exploited and therefore for prevention of such exploitation in 1957 the Copyright Act was enacted in India. Copyright has some closely related rights that follow similar principles of protection these are called related rights or neighboring rights the definition of a performance in Section 2(q) of the Copyright Act is: ‘performance’, in relation to performer's right, means any visual or acoustic presentation made live by one or more performers. The words ‘made live’ are not defined in the statute, and unless a ‘live performance’ is construed extremely broadly, and the statute is interpreted purposively, it is not clear how it could apply to the recorded performance of an actor in a film. However, the provisions of the statute have been widely interpreted to mean that film actors are intended to be able to benefit from the performer’s right, especially in light of the amendment to Section 2(qq) of the existing Act which defines a performer. As such, there appears to be a technical infirmity in the copyright statute insofar as requiring a recorded performance to be considered to be a live performance, so as to enable a film actor to be considered to enjoy the performer’s right as contemplated by the statute, is concerned.
In addition to this, the provisions regarding the violation of the ‘Performer’s Right’ have been significantly restructured in the Bill, and have been transposed to a new Section: 38A of the Act. Section 38(3) of the Copyright Act before the coming into force of the 2012 amendments enumerated a number of acts the performance of which would have been a violation of the performer’s right. Thus, it was been drafted in prescripttive sense. Section 38A of the Act now enumerates acts similar to those listed in Section 14 (which defines the ‘Meaning of Copyright’) of the copyright statute, but instead of stating that performing them without consent would cause one to violate the performer’s right, it states that these it is the exclusive right of the performer to perform or authorize the performance of these acts or any substantial part thereof. As such, the new Section 38A in the Act may be considered to be prescripttive in nature. You can call me at 09555 507 507 or send me a mail at info@lawkonect.com to discuss further on this matter.