In a copyright infringement claim filed by production house Yashraj Films Private Limited. The Delhi High Court issued summons to an American short video platform ‘Triller’ on Tuesday. Restraining the platform from infringing its copyright in sound recordings, musical works, and literary works.
Malhotra contended that ‘Triller’ should take precautions to avoid such infringement. They’ve given us an extraction tool. They have provided an enabling feature in which you can extract the audio from videos uploaded on the Triller app. Which allows for the creation and sharing of audio/video content. Triller’s counsel stated that he would follow his client’s instructions on the matter. He claimed that every time they were informed of the infringement, they removed the links.
Yashraj filed an interim relief application with a single-bench judge, Justice Amit Bansal. To prevent Triller from exploiting its copyrighted content.
According to Yashraj’s lawsuit, Triller includes an extraction tool that allows users to post audio-visual information or brief movies using Yashraj’s works.
“The defendant illegally uploads, stores, reproduces, makes copies, creates new works embodying the plaintiff’s works, commercially exploits, communicates to the public, makes a sound recording in respect of the plaintiff’s works, adapts, modifies, synchronises, and/or otherwise exploits or permits the aforesaid acts by users of the impugned platforms,” the plea read.
The panel set the matter for hearing on February 2nd.
Triller’s lawyer stated that Yashraj and the social media firm have been feuding for some time and that he will follow their instructions in this matter. Triller’s spokesman added that the social networking site has not ignored the issue. It has continued to delete content that violates copyright. The lawsuit also claimed that, while some of the links mentioned in the warnings had been removed. Triller had failed to fulfil its obligation to do so, and that other links had continued to function or had appeared on a regular basis.
According to the plea, the contested platforms contain various features. Such as the audio extraction feature, that go beyond the limited role of an intermediary specified in Section 79 (2)(a) of the IT Act. Thereby disenfranchising the Defendant from the “safe-harbour” protection guaranteed to intermediaries under the IT Act.