Delhi High Court says Humans of Bombay, PoI cannot use each other's copyrighted material, but no copyright over ideas

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said that both Humans of Bombay and People of India could not use each other's copyrighted material..Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that as per the settled legal position, there is no copyright in an idea, but emphasized that if the expression of the idea was copied or imitated, it could constitute copyright infringement. .PoI argued today that Humans of Bombay could not claim copyright over the concept of a storytelling platform and that both platforms were inspired by the model established by Humans of New York.The Court, however, emphasized that the key issue was not who originated the idea, but whether either party had copied the other's specific content, such as images. It was noted that People of India had claimed that Humans of Bombay had also copied some images.Further, PoI argued that since the subjects of the story themselves had sent the images, no case of copyright could be claimed by Humans of Bombay..The Court noted that there could not be any monopoly in running a story-telling platform. However, it emphasized that all platforms ought to adopt their own creative expression to communicate and disseminate their stories. "If any photographs are commissioned, the copyright in the said photographs would vest in the platform. Similarly, if any videos are produced, the copyright in the said videos would vest in the platform themselves and they would qualify as cinematograph works," it added..Accordingly, the Court directed both platforms to refrain from using each other's copyrighted work, including commissioned photos, original stories, videos commissioned by themselves, and their manner of expression.However, it also emphasized that there could be no copyright claim over private photos of individuals who sent them to either platform."Both the platforms, i.e. Humans of Bombay and People of India shall refrain from using each other’s copyrighted works i.e. (1) commissioned photographs, (2) literary works such as interviews and original pieces written by their own authors (3) any videos that have been commissioned by themselves and (4) the manner of presentation that has been adopted by the platforms in respect of a particular subject or individual ... In so far as the individual’s or subject’s own private photographs from their own private collection is concerned, there can be no copyright claim by either of the platforms," the Court ordered..Humans of Bombay (HoB) had sued People of India (PoI) for allegedly publishing unlicensed adaptations, appropriating its films, literary works, unique format storytelling, creative expression, presentation of story board as well as the manner that is identified with HoB.In the previous hearing, the Court had issued summons to PoI and asked it to file its response to the suit as well as the interim relief application to restrain PoI from using the copyrighted work of HoB.The dispute became a hot topic on social media after Humans of New York (HoNY) founder Brandon Stanton weighed in, expressing his discontent with the suit filed by HoB.Stanton took to X (formerly Twitter) on September 23 to state that he had been quiet on the "appropriation" of his work by HoB because it shares important stories. However, he a took a dim view of the company suing others for similar reasons..Several social media handles also pointed out that HoB itself came after HoNY and that the idea behind the two platforms are quite similar..In response to Stanton's tweet, Humans of Bombay issued the following statement:.In its suit, HoB has argued that PoI has not only imitated its storytelling style but also copied its photos, films, and stories sans authorisation.HoB annexed several screenshots to provide evidence of infringement and said that PoI has been passing off its material as their own..Advocates Abhishek Malhotra, Srishti Gupta and Ishita Goel appeared for Humans of Bombay.People of India was represented through advocates Deepesh Joshi, Bhavna Vijay, Prashant Sthapak, Syed Ashhar Anwar..Read a detailed story on the controversy and the law involved here..[Read Judgement]